Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return,
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during 1962."—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Obsolete Rural Primary Schools

Mr. Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Education if he will institute a separate building programme designed solely for the replacement of obsolete rural primary schools.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): No, Sir. I hope that the resources available for school building will enable steady progress to be made with the replacement of obsolete primary schools, including rural schools. It would not help, however, to have a separate programme.

Mr. Bossom: Would it not take about 10 years for a county like Herefordshire to catch up with its primary school building programme? Will there not be nearly 800,000 new places required in primary schools in England and Wales by 1972? Could not my right hon. Friend put much more emphasis on the building of these primary schools, especially in rural areas?

Sir E. Boyle: I have never made any secret to the House of the fact that I know a great deal remains to be done,

both in the country districts and in the towns. During the five years between 1960 and 1965 we are concentrating on completing the reorganisation and making a considerable start with secondary school replacements. But I quite accept the fact that there is a measure of work to be done on primary school replacements in later periods.

Mr. Hilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at his hon. Friend's suggestion? Is he aware that in many rural areas, such as Norfolk, where many of our schools are completely outdated, there could be a tremendous saving both in money and teacher-manpower if new village schools were built and many of the old slum schools done away with? Will he seriously look at the matter again?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the Question relates specifically to the idea of having a separate programme. I believe that in drawing up the building programmes of authorities it is wise practice to give attention, as I try to do within the resources available, to the order of priority given by the authorities themselves.

Mr. P. Browne: Is not my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure he is—that we have this problem all over the country? Is not his answer rather odd when he says that there will be sufficient resources, in view of the fact that the Devon Education Committee has had a cut from £902,000 to £63,000 in its building programme for 1963–64?

Sir E. Boyle: I said that a great deal remains to be done. I did not use the words"sufficient resources". I said that I thought that within the total resources available it was important to give attention to the priority given by the local authorities themselves, and that I doubted whether a separate programme, as proposed in the Question, was the right idea.

Primary Schools

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Education if he will order a sample analysis to be carried out to discover what correlation there is between age of transfer from infants to junior sections of primary schools and subsequent performance in the 11-plus examination; and if he will publish the results.

Sir E. Boyle: As I announced in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) on 17th June, I have asked the Central Advisory Council for Education to consider primary education in all its aspects and the transition to secondary education. I cannot commit the Council to detailed projects of the kind suggested, but I am sure that it will make a thorough study of all aspects of selection for secondary schools.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question is concerned not with selection for secondary schools but with the transfer from the infants to junior sections of primary schools? Is he aware that many parents feel that because there can be a variation of as much as a year in the age of transfer from infants to junior sections, this can set back the progress of a child so that he is not on an equal footing with his competitors who were transferred at a later age?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not deny that the hon. Gentleman has a point here. I think he is on to a real problem. There have been investigations, such as the one in Durham, into the proportion of children born in the summer found in the lower streams of primary schools. My point was that the subject of the Question is so closely related to the organisation of primary education generally that I doubted the wisdom of having a separate inquiry over and above the major inquiry which the Central Advisory Council will shortly be carrying out.

Training Colleges (Libraries)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education, in view of the increased expenditure on libraries in training colleges, if he will provide more funds for clerical assistance in running these libraries.

Sir E. Boyle: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to voluntary colleges. I am ready to consider on their merits proposals from these colleges for this purpose.

Mr. Boyden: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sending me that list and for the progress being made. But does not he think that it is a waste of scarce college staff to concern them with a very

onerous chore and that one of the best ways of using auxiliaries would be to employ them in this service?

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the voluntary colleges will take note of the very reasonable and constructive suggestion of the hon. Member. However, no request has been received from voluntary colleges for staff in addition to those on the list. If requests are received, I will consider them on their merits.

Foreign Language Assistants

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education why more Austrian, Belgian and Swiss assistants are not employed in English schools.

Sir E. Boyle: We take all the candidates put forward, and the authorities know that we would gladly take more. In spite of the small numbers from these particular countries, however, the total number of foreign language assistants in our schools is growing each year.

Mr. Boyden: The obvious places to get assistants from are these three countries. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something through our embassies to encourage recruitment there? Our local education authorities want as many as they can get.

Sir E. Boyle: I have made known to the authorities concerned that an increase would be welcome. The Austrians have told me that it would make the matter easier for them if their assistants were allowed to return home at the end of June instead of at the end of the school year in July. I am considering allowing this.
It seems—and I am only surmising this—that in the three countries concerned it is not at present part of the accepted pattern for students of English to spend a year in Britain during or immediately after their university course. I am considering practical ways of getting more assistants from all these three countries.

Packaged Sweets (Picture Cards)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has received from educational leaders in the North-East about undesirable picture cards in packages of sweets; and what reply he has made.

Sir E. Boyle: I have received a letter from the Blyth Teachers' Association which requests my assistance in suppressing the issue of these cards. In reply I have drawn the attention of the Association to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member's Question on 2nd July, and I have explained that I have no powers to suppress the production or distribution of these cards. I hope, however, that parents will support teachers in helping their children to discriminate against shoddy material.

Mr. Milne: Whilst thanking the right hon. Member for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that it simply does not go far enough and that, while we appreciate that he has no power to introduce legislation, the Home Secretary has? Will he discuss this with the Home Secretary with a view to some action being taken? The question of moral protection of children in schools is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility.

Sir E. Boyle: I am bound to say that I doubt whether legislation would be the right way to do this. I think that this is a matter rather for the pressure of public opinion. These cards are absolutely deplorable, but what struck me about them was not so much that they were frightening or corrupting as that they were so utterly shoddy and contemptible. I would rather see this sort of thing dealt with by force of public opinion.

Mrs. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will not get the withdrawal of these cards? Does not he think that, particularly in the circumstances in which we are living, something should be done by the Government themselves?

Mrs. White: This Government?

Mrs. Slater: Well, they are in power at the moment. It is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to see that our children are protected. We had to do something about horror comics. Why cannot we do something about these terrible cards?

Sir E. Boyle: I ask the House seriously to consider whether it would be right to try to frame legislation about the types of pictures which go into packets

of sweets. I accept fully that these are absolutely lamentable pictures. In taste, in style and everything else one could not imagine more lamentable cards. However, I cannot but feel that it would be best if the children, so far from buying these sweets because they contain cards, came to realise how bad the pictures were and stopped buying the sweets. I think that pressure of public opinion is better than legislation in these cases.

Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government are to take action in matters of this kind, they should start a little higher up?

Mr. Milne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter later.

Sir E. Boyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this question is about whether there should be legislation. Would that be in order on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that if and when it arises on the Adjournment.

School Leaving Age

9. Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education if he now intends to raise the school leaving age to 16 years before October, 1964.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. This would be quite impossible, but I intend before the end of this Parliament, as my predecessor promised, to make a further statement on the Government's attitude to this important reform.

Mr. Fitch: Can the right hon. Gentleman be a little specific? Can he tell us the year in which he intends to raise the school leaving age to 16? Or is this to be a major item in Conservative Party policy for the next General Election?

Sir E. Boyle: I deeply regret the way in which any statement I make on this subject—I am not specifically blaming the hon. Member—is invariably greeted, sometimes even in the educational Press, with a reference to party politics. We are facing a population explosion in the schools. The figure of prospective school


population is now quite markedly different from any imagined at the time Lord Eccles made his original statement. It is for that reason only that I am not able to make a definite statement now.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman now going back even on what Lord Eccles said? The failure of the Government to implement theCrowther Report will be a major black mark on their education policy. Is it not becoming increasingly clear that they will not make a statement until the eve of the General Election?

Sir E. Boyle: I am not going back on what Lord Eccles said. I will fulfil exactly the pledge he gave the House. It is worth remembering that there will be a step forward in the next education year when Christmas leaving at the minimum age will be abolished, and that this will make a reality of the fourth year in all secondary schools.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is it not the case that there is an ever increasing and encouraging number of children attending secondary modern schools after the age of 15?

Sir E. Boyle: That is correct. Voluntary staying on has risen in this Parliament from about one-third to nearly two-fifths. But that does not alter the fact of the pledge by my predecessor that a further statement would be made in this Parliament, and I certainly intend to fulfil it.

School Building Projects, Blackburn

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Education why he has refused to allow Blackburn local education authority to proceed with any major school building projects in 1964–65, in view of the urgent need to replace some of the outworn schools in the town, particularly the St. Mary's Roman Catholic Secondary School for Boys.

Sir E. Boyle: The 1964–65 school building programme consists mainly of projects needed to keep pace with housing developments and to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools. Blackburn had no projects in these categories. It was possible for me to include only a relatively small number of proposals to replace and improve existing schools. The proposals put forward by the Blackburn authority for this category were less immediately

urgent than others, which were included, from other parts of the country.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Blackburn education authority submitted six major proposals to him, all of them urgent, for 1964–65 and that he has turned down every one? Is he also aware that the authority gave top priority to the rebuilding of St. Mary's Roman Catholic School for Boys, and that his own Department is in no doubt that this should take place as quickly as possible because the school is housed in the worst education buildings in the town? Is he further aware that the Roman Catholic authorities have their plans already made, and that they have played their part very fully in the reorganisation of all-age schools? Yet they are now being penalised. Will he reconsider this matter?

Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of what the hon. Lady has said. I wonder whether she is aware that an adjoining authority, Lancashire, was given four major replacement projects. It is difficult to allocate these things absolutely fairly, but I would point out that this is only the second occasion since 1952 that Blackburn has had a blank programme, which is not a bad record for an authority of that size. Altogether, 15 major projects have been approved there in the last 13 building programmes.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen photographs of this school? If he has, would not he agree that it was worn out many years ago and is now a scandal?

Sir E. Boyle: I have seen photographs. I accept that it was extremely difficult, particularly in the North, to decide the exact order of priorities for replacements. Without any reference to this particular school, it is my hope to make a further statement shortly about the school building programme.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Hornsey College of Art and Crafts

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Education why the Summerson Council has not granted all areas of art study to Hornsey School of Art.

Sir E. Boyle: The Hornsey College of Art and Crafts was approved by the National Council for Diploma in Art and Design to offer courses leading to the Diploma in Art and Design in the fine art and graphic design areas of study. The National Council was not satisfied that the courses proposed by the college in the two remaining areas, namely three dimensional design and fashion/textiles, measured up to the exacting standards required for the new diploma.

Mrs. Butler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the condition of the buildings entered into the Council's decision at all, and whether it took into account the fact that this is the Middlesex College of Art, covering a wide and densely populated area of Middlesex and the northern Home Counties? Since there is a very strong argument for making Hornsey and similar colleges in different parts of the country centres of art for their regions, with all areas of study, will the right hon. Gentleman bear the geographical aspect in mind when fresh applications are made to him by Hornsey and other colleges?

Sir E. Boyle: Certainly I will. With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, I can assure her that, in reaching its decision, the National Council was fully aware of the projected rebuilding of the college. As the hon. Lady knows, there is a £200,000 instalment in the 1964–65 programme. The Council made every allowance for present accommodation difficulties.

Diploma in Art and Design

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to alleviate the position of students at colleges of art who have been taking the preliminary course for the new Diploma in Art and Design, but for more than 50 per cent. of whom no places for the diploma course will be available.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make special provision for those suitably qualified students at present unable to find places in Diploma in Art and Design courses this autumn to complete such courses.

Sir E. Boyle: There are at present about 2,900 students taking pre-diploma courses whose age and educational quali-

fications make them eligible for a course leading to the new Diploma in Art and Design. It is not yet known how many will complete the pre-diploma course successfully. Diploma courses approved by the National Council for Diplomas in Art and Design will provide approximately 1,400 places next autumn. Arrangements were announced last January for shortened courses leading to the existing Intermediate examination and National Diploma in Design to provide for those students who are unable to obtain places in the new diploma course.

Mrs. White: In the first place, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a most deplorable lack of forethought in this matter, and that it was most undesirable that so many students should have been allowed to enter a pre-diploma course although there is not the slightest chance whatever that they can obtain places in diploma courses, leading to the most severe disappointment and frustration for those concerned?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to the very serious anomalies which have arisen in this interim period, about which I have had lengthy correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary and about which I hoped to get a reply this afternoon?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry. If the hon. Lady would like to come and speak to me about the details she has raised, which I think raise issues that are not easy to discuss at Question Time, I should be very pleased to see her, and indeed see a deputation of two or three hon. Members if there is concern about this.
With regard to the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, I have looked into this matter carefully. It was essential at the inauguration of a new course of first degree standing that stringent standards should be applied, and we have done our best through, for example, special arrangements for 1964, to mitigate the immediate difficulties.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully appreciate the difficulties of the present situation, but we have to pay regard to two things in particular: One is the calibre of the students who are attracted to these


courses, and we ought to avoid being unfair to them if we can possibly do so. Secondly, there is the geographical effect of the implementation of these recommendations.
In view of these two consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman not so much discuss this with us, but see that there are immediate discussions to discover what steps can be taken effectively to alleviate this problem?

Sir E. Boyle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. If a student wishes to extend his pre-diploma course for a year in the hope of obtaining in 1964 a place on a course which will lead to the Diploma in Art and Design, his local education authority can at its discretion pay a grant for the whole period of the pre-diploma course, and I think that this will be of help to some students.
As a result of re-applications, it may well be that more courses can be approved to begin in 1964 both at colleges and schools which have been granted some approval, and even perhaps at others which failed to gain any approval for courses to start this year, but I am open to consider any proposals which hon. Members on either side of the House may like to put on this.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people who generally support the idea of diplomas and even accept the Summerson recommendations feel that he has made an unholy mess of the transitional arrangements and that the steps he has so far announced are inadequate to deal with the very many problems which have arisen? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the whole matter?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman asks me to reconsider this. We have the report of the Council and I am sure that we cannot go back on the decisions here about stringent standards; but as for the consequences of this and the implications for students, I am ready to discuss and reconsider any concrete ideas that are put forward.

Exchange of Teachers (America)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education whether he will increase the number of exchange teachers to be sent

to America in 1964–65 under the exchange of teachers programme.

Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to his Question on 11th April. I have now agreed to receive a deputation from the British Interchange Committee on 30th July.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both he and I agree that these exchanges are not only good for education, but for British-American friendship? Is not the moment now opportune for stepping up the exchanges that we arrange to the numbers that existed before he cut them down?

Sir E. Boyle: This is difficult in view of the different financial standards on both sides of the Atlantic, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, I attach great importance to the exchanges and I am looking forward to discussing this matter with the deputation at the end of the month.

School Building Programme, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the concern of the Leyton Borough Council about the economies affecting education in that borough; and if he will consult the Essex County Council with a view to reconsidering those economies which affect the Borough of Leyton.

Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate the borough council's disappointment that none of the Essex projects in the 1964–65 building programme is in its area. I have recently seen a deputation from the Essex education authority to discuss the most urgent of its outstanding proposals, which did not include those in Leyton.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the Minister has received a communication or representations from the Leyton Borough Council on this matter? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is causing very strong feelings in all quarters of Leyton, and is it not disappointing in the extreme that when he saw this deputation of the Essex County Council it did not include Leyton? Will he see that this is done?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman must realise that I am in a difficulty. I saw a deputation from Essex. I agreed to the inclusion of one more school that was clearly urgently needed, but the proposals did not include any schools in the Leyton area. It is Essex which is the local education authority. It may be that we could discuss this in the context of the proposals for the London Government Bill, but we cannot do that now. That is my difficulty, and I am bound to have regard to the order of priority which the local education authority puts to me.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not shameful?

Sir E. Boyle: I should not like to express a view about that. It is not for me to dogmatise on the priorities put to me by other authorities.

Colleges of Advanced Technology (Teachers' Salaries)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on salary scales of teachers in colleges of advanced technology.

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education why no increase in salary has been offered to lecturers and assistant lecturers at colleges of advanced technology.

Sir E. Boyle: It is the Government's intention that the salaries of staff in the colleges of advanced technology should be related to those of university teachers with comparable responsibilities. Both sets of salaries are being reviewed simultaneously by the National Incomes Commission. In the meantime it is desirable that nothing should be done to accentuate any divergencies between the two systems. The reason why the increases which have recently been announced for college of advanced technology teachers do not include any increases for lecturers and assistant lecturers is that the existing salary scales for these grades are already comparable with those of the corresponding grades in universities.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the A.U.T. has described his action as disgraceful, and the A.T.T.I. has described it as a gross injustice? This is not the first time that the right

hon. Gentleman has been stigmatised by the bodies with whom he is in negotiation. Is he further aware that they complain that there has not been proper negotiation? As it is clear, that C.A.T.s are to be prejudiced unless action is taken, will he say that we cannot afford to wait for the report from N.I.C. but that some action will have to be taken in view of the fact that junior staffs of the C.A.T.s are the only staffs of the teaching world who will have had no increase?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman has raised three points. As regards the views of the A.U.T. and the A.T.T.I., I have taken my stand on the point on which I must continue to stand, that C.A.T.s staffs must in future expect their salaries to move in step with university salaries rather than with salaries in technical colleges. C.A.T.s cannot be between the two, part of the range being comparable with universities, and the lower half being comparable with regional colleges.
On negotiation, I say that negotiating machinery of the Burnham type is no longer appropriate for these institutions. The proposed increases were fully discussed with the teachers association.

Mr. Shinwell: This is too long.

Sir E. Boyle: I was asked three questions on this important subject. I personally interviewed both sides. Finally, the starting salary of a C.A.T. lecturer at £1,600 is equivalent to that of a university lecturer after six years' service.

Mrs. White: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the staffs of the colleges of advanced technology say that there is no properly worked out system of equivalents and that many of them have had industrial experience, some of it of considerable length, before entering teaching, but that it is not taken into account when they are compared with university staff?

Sir E. Boyle: Can I assure the hon. Lady that we have tried to take this into account? The starting salary of a C.A.T. lecturer is £1,600, while the basic minimum for a university lecturer is £1,250. After looking into this carefully, I believe that the disparity is wide enough to cover differences in conditions.

Primary Education (Committee)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he will give the names of the members of the committee which is to study primary education.

Sir E. Boyle: I hope to make an announcement next week.

Dr. King: While I would not make any personal criticism of the chairman and vice-chairman of this very important committee, would it not have been better to appoint a primary head teacher as its chairman? As the Minister has not done that, can he assure us that he will appoint to this committee members of the teaching profession who know about primary schools and citizens who have been educated in primary schools?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the committee, whose membership I hope to announce next week, will include strong representation of all the appropriate sectors of the education service. I must say that I believe that Lady Plowden will make an admirable chairman of this committee.

Mr. Jennings: While I welcome the decision to appoint a committee to investigate primary schools, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether any member is to be appointed who has direct teaching experience in primary schools? If not, why not? Would it not be logical and practical for my right hon. Friend to do so?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that when my hon. Friend sees the list he will agree that all the appropriate sectors of the education service, including the practical representatives of the teaching profession, are reasonably represented on the committee.

Teachers, Wales (Appointment)

Mr. Box: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of widespread concern over the methods used in the appointment of teachers in Wales; and whether he will instruct the Central Advisory Council for Wales to investigate and report on the position.

Sir E. Boyle: I have seen recent articles and letters in the Welsh Press about this matter but I have received no evidence. The Central Advisory Council for Edu-

cation (Wales) is not in any case an appropriate body to which matters of this kind could be referred.

Mr. Box: May I assure my right hon. Friend that I will let him have copies of the correspondence which has recently been appearing in the columns of the Western Mail? Is he aware that they contain allegations of nepotism, favouritism and canvassing in connection with the appointments of teachers in Wales? Is he further aware that in some parts of Wales it now appears to be more important to be a member of the Labour Party, or a member of the Co-operative movement, rather than to have educational ability, to obtain such appointments?

Sir E. Boyle: Of course I will consider any evidence which my hon. Friend puts to me but, with all respect to our friends in the Press, I am bound to say that few people would say that"think pieces", as they are sometimes called, either in the form of articles or letters, are necessarily precise evidence. But of course I will consider any points put to me.

Temples of Abu Simbel

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Education, in view of the recent adoption of the Swedish plan to save the temples of Abu Simbel, whether he will reconsider his decision not to contribute to the appeal by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Sir E. Boyle: I am giving further consideration to this question in the light of recent developments.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a cause for shame that of all major Western European countries, at present Britain alone has failed to contribute?

Sir E. Boyle: The original scheme put forward was very questionable from the point of view of U.N.E.S.C.O. resources, but I do not exclude the possibility of a United Kingdom contribution. The point is that this is a matter which must be further considered, and I am perfectly ready to get in touch with the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, when I have further news.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some very


urgent rethinking has been done on this issue? While the building of the reservoir is of dire necessity for the people of Egypt, the preservation of these temples is a challenge to the culture of the whole world. Will he promise to reconsider his decision?

Sir E. Boyle: I said precisely that I am doing so. As my hon. Friend will know, the decision to proceed with the Swedish plan has already been taken formally by the U.A.R. and U.N.E.S.C.O.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that the matter has now entirely changed because the cost of the new scheme will be very much less than the original? Will he bear in mind that there is some urgency about this matter and that it would be regarded as most invidious if this country of all the great Powers were the only one which did not make a contribution to preserve these unique temples?

Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly bear in mind all the points the hon. Gentleman has made.

Secondary School Selection

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities in England and Wales still retain the eleven-plus system of examination.

Sir E. Boyle: Many local education authorities are experimenting with new selection arrangements, some of which rely more on teachers' assessments and less on formal tests, but so far as I am aware only the Anglesey authority does not operate a system of secondary school selection.

Mr. Fitch: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 11-plus system of examination is satisfactory? Would he consider advising local education authorities to try the comprehensive system?

Sir E. Boyle: We must distinguish between the 11-plus examination and selection procedures and the pattern of secondary school organisation. These are not the same thing. I hope to have something to say on this subject tomorrow when I address the Association of Education Committees. I should get into trouble with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) if I attempted

to give my views on these two subjects at Question Time.

Mr. Willey: Before the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement tomorrow, will he appreciate that the next Government will abolish the 11-plus examination? In view of this, is it not time that he took preparatory action?

Sir E. Boyle: This is exactly the point I am on, because the statement of the party opposite, that it is to abolish the 11-plus, was slightly weakened by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that any grammar school would be closed over his dead body.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

White Paper

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent the policy stated in paragraph 75 of Command Paper No. 2050 represents a change in Government policy.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): The statements in paragraph 75 of the White Paper are fully in accord with the Government's frequently declared policy on housing subsidies and the cost of housing.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in paragraph 75 of that Command Paper he says that people are prepared to meet the cost of owning a house of their own? Will he remember that hundreds of thousands of people who cannot afford to pay for a home are having to do so, and are in great difficulty, because it is the only way in which they can get a house? As the Minister responsible for local government, will he set up an inquiry to go into the costs of building and to report to the House?

Sir K. Joseph: I am glad to say that the numbers of houses are in general rising and that the Government are increasing the programme, both public and private, because of the need.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in his discussions with local authorities, mentioned in paragraph 76 of Command


Paper No. 2050, he will give an assurance that he will take into account all proposals made by local authorities in England and Wales for housing subsidies.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. But I hope that any local authority with a suggestion to make will, as a matter of convenience, put it forward through the appropriate local authority association.

Mr. Spriggs: In the meantime, when discussing local government finance would the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that interest repayments form a great proportion of the cost of building houses and schools?

Sir K. Joseph: Interest will, of course, be one of the costs which will be taken into account.

Mr. M. Stewart: Have not local authorities already laid great stress on that aspect of the matter in their communications to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir K. Joseph: Some local authorities have, but this is to be a thorough overhaul of all housing subsidies, all the costs and all the incomes.

Decontrolled Houses (Improvements)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he proposes to take to safeguard tenants of decontrolled houses, who request the installation of a bath, inside water closet or hot water system, from eviction by their landlords.

Sir K. Joseph: Details of the scheme for compulsory improvement are now being worked out, and I think it is best to see the whole scheme before debating particular points.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the danger of tenants being deterred from seeking improvements through fear of eviction point to a serious weakness in the Minister's recent proposals? Would it not be better if the initiative in seeking improvements were placed firmly in the hands of local authorities? Alternatively, would the right hon. Gentleman consider restoring protection, or control to tenants who seek the permission of local authorities for improvements, as under the rent tribunal procedure?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Member misjudges the attitude of very nearly every landlord, but the point he is making will be borne in mind.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many tenants who are very worried about repairing serious sanitary defects in their homes because they expect that the result of their so doing will be eviction, and that this fear is widespread?

Sir K. Joseph: No. I am not aware of that, but the point will be borne in mind.

Council House Building Programmes

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will state his estimate of council house building programmes for 1963, 1964 and 1965.

Sir K. Joseph: I expect to see an increase of about 6 per cent. in the number of houses approved for local authorities and new towns during 1963. I would not wish to make precise forecasts for subsequent years, but I would refer the hon. Member to the steadily expanding programme envisaged in the recent Housing White Paper.

Mr. Allaun: Surely the totals that the Minister has in mind are quite inadequate to meet the long waiting lists of those who cannot afford to buy houses. Surely, when we could build 190,000 houses way back in 1948, we can do better today, and not far worse?

Sir K. Joseph: As the hon. Member knows, practically every building craftsman in England and Wales is fully employed on building. Under a Tory Government there is a simultaneous record programme on every side of social investment, including housing.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Betting Offices

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will amend the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order to enable the number of betting offices in an area to be taken


into account by local authorities when applications for betting offices are considered.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): It is for the licensing justices to control the number of betting offices under the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, and my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be wrong to try to duplicate the control under planning powers. The Use Classes Order would not, in any event, be an appropriate instrument for the purpose which the hon. Lady has in mind.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware of the concern of local authorities about the flood of applications for new betting offices which come before them, and about their lack of planning powers to reduce these applications even where the number of betting offices in an area is already excessive? Since this planning aspect is entirely the responsibility of the Minister, will he take whatever action is appropriate to give local authorities these planning powers?

Mr. Corfield: I have no knowledge of any representations from local planning authorities on this score. I can see no possible objective in duplicating powers that already exist.

Erith Marshes (New Town)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the discussions with the London County Council on the proposed new town for 25,000 people on Erith Marshes; how many meetings have been held; and what further meetings are contemplated;
(2) what talks have been held, or are contemplated, in respect to the estimated cost of £50 million for the proposed new town on stilts for 25,000 people on Erith Marshes; and what decision has been reached on the share of the cost to be borne by Her Majesty's Government, the London County Council and the Kent County Council.

Sir K. Joseph: Earlier this year officers of the London County Council and my Department discussed general questions of financial assistance towards the cost of developing the Woolwich Arsenal—

Erith Marshes land and of moving industry into the area, in the event that the county council should decide to go forward with such a scheme. In view of the unusual site conditions, I would expect the London County Council to seek further informal discussions with my Department on the availability of housing subsidies, particularly those payable on expensive sites and tall block of flats. No decision is called for from me on any sharing of the cost by the Kent County Council.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but can he give an assurance that he is closely watching developments here, in view of the fact that in many ways this is different from and much more costly than anything that has been attempted by a local authority before? Secondly, does he appreciate the impact that this is creating upon local people where the transport system is already working to the maximum capacity, and also where there are difficulties in getting jobs? In view of the special nature of this project, may we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping all these things in mind?

Sir K. Joseph: These things are not yet for me, except where local authorities like the L.C.C. wish to consult the Department informally about possible contributions under possible conditions. I am sure that the L.C.C. will study the points which have been made by the hon. Member in his Question.

Yacht Marinas

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what steps he is taking to help local authorities who wish to have yacht marinas in their areas; and what advice he has given to planning authorities.

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has as yet received no proposals from any local authority to provide a yacht marina itself, and he has no reason to suppose that planning authorities need any advice from him on the subject.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people who are interested in leisure and sailing in all its forms throughout the country, including the Midland area, on occasion find that


local authorities at the seaside are somewhat unco-operative? Will he look into this matter closely at all times?

Mr. Corfield: I can only assure my hon. Friend that as and when applications for planning permission come forward they will be considered on their merits in the same way as any other applications.

Mr. M. Stewart: In this connection will the Minister bear in mind the letter I have written to him recently about the proposal of the Middlesex authority for a marina—a proposal which is jeopardised by his intention to allow the land in question to be used, instead, by St. Paul's School?

Smoke Nuisance, Derby

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to a letter from the Town Clerk of Derby dated 12th June, 1963, concerning the serious nuisance caused by the emission of smoke from the premises of G. E. Baker (Metals) Limited, and Denby Metals Limited, Great Northern Road, Derby.

Mr. Corfield: The town clerk has been told that my right hon. Friend's consent is not required to the service of an abatement notice. His consent would be required before proceedings could be taken against the company, but as at present advised he would not consider himself justified in giving it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am asking this Question at the request of the borough council? Is he further aware that it is now seven years since the so-called Clean Air Act was passed? This appalling nuisance in Derby has been getting worse ever since. Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend that he should assure the council that he will give consent to proceedings?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend is advised by the Alkali Inspectorate that this company is doing all that it can reasonably be expected to do to meet this problem. As the right hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, that would constitute a defence to proceedings. I am bound to say that I cannot think that this would be a very profitable exercise.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend look at this matter again? It is at least five years since the Alkali Inspectorate told me exactly what it is now saying—and it is too long.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to make the office of Deputy Prime Minister a permanent feature of the Constitution of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Prime Minister think that it might help him in two ways? First, he would be able to delegate permanently the answering of Questions, that he said in an interview in May he cannot bear doing himself? Secondly, might it not help him in his interesting struggle for survival, which we are all watching with such sympathy—because he would be able to fossilise one of his more dangerous rivals?

The Prime Minister: Having made his well-prepared supplementary, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make an equally well-prepared reply. In several Administrations over the last 20 years it has been the practice of the Prime Minister to appoint a senior member of the Government to act as Deputy Prime Minister. This helps in the efficient dispatch of public business. But it is not an appointment submitted to the Sovereign and in my view it should not be so.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the Prime Minister, at the same time, say whether the office of Prime Minister is a permanent feature of the constitution?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it became so for the first time, as a recognised one, at the time of King Edward VII.

Mr. Wyatt: Would not the right hon. Gentleman care to expand his views on answering Questions, which he said he found so distasteful in the interview in May?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that I found them distasteful, but, like any


form of public appearance, there is a certain amount of nervous strain. But I do my best.

Mr. H. Wilson: We are all sure that the right hon. Gentleman does his best, and we all agree with him that the first time his office was mentioned in the Table of Precedence was in 1906, but just to get the record right, would it not be right to say that the first time the title of Prime Minister occurred was on Disraeli's signing of the Treaty of Berlin, in 1878, and that the first time it appeared statutorily was in the Chequers Act? Since he has made his historical statement, should not we get that on the record?

The Prime Minister: There are so many occasions on which I wish to differ from the right hon. Gentleman that I will certainly accept his historical reminiscences.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGISLATION (DRAFTING)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will ensure that legislation presented to this House is not drafted in obscure language.

The Prime Minister: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's objective. However, I am afraid that, in order to achieve precision in legislation which is complex and often technical, it is not always possible to avoid an impression of obscurity.

Mr. Dalyell: I accept the fact that the Parliamentary draftsmen must try to prevent those who would pretend to misunderstand from doing so, but is it not also important that we laity should understand legislation?

The Prime Minister: I know that this is a difficult problem. I would remind the House of the very wise words of Sir James Stephen, one of our greatest authorities, who pointed out that since legislation is often the subject of litigation it is absolutely necessary not only that it should appear to be simple to those who read it in good faith, but actually precise. That is a very difficult art. Many things are simple. Let us take the sentence:"When John met his uncle in the street he took off his hat".

That is a clear sentence, but it is capable of at least six different meanings. The point about legislation is that the courts have to interpret it in litigation based upon it, and it is therefore essential that it should be not so much simple as precise.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILLS (EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA)

Mr. O'Malley: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange, that when complex legislation is presented to the House, particularly a Finance Bill, a detailed explanatory memorandum is published in the form of a White Paper.

The Prime Minister: There would be great practical difficulties in producing a detailed memorandum explaining all the proposals covered by a typical Finance Bill to coincide with the publication of the Bill. On the other hand, on the occasion of the Finance Bill, 1962, a White Paper was issued explaining the provisions relating to short-term gains and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to bear in mind the possibility of publishing, at a reasonable interval after the publication of the Bill itself, a memorandum about unusually complicated sections of the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the criticisms and views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the recent debates on the Finance Bill? Would not he consider it extremely helpful, to back-bench Members particularly, that such memoranda should be published, and therefore will he reconsider the whole matter so that in respect of future Finance Bills back-bench Members will have the kind of information which they require before they attempt to speak in this House?

The Prime Minister: I have every sympathy with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman. I think that Finance Bills dealing with a large number of subjects and sometimes fairly simple provisions seem very complicated. What we tried to do in 1962, where there was a fairly complicated provision, was to issue a special White Paper to explain that particular part. Other Finance Bills are


fairly simple and involve the raising or reduction of the Income Tax or something of that kind. Therefore, I take account of what the hon. Member has said. Perhaps 1962 sets a precedent which could be followed with the more complicated and legalistic parts of Finance Bills.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does this Question mean that if the Labour Party gets to power it may introduce an explanatory memorandum of its intentions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no part of the duty of the Prime Minister to answer about the intentions of the party opposite.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the Prime Minister looked at the Finance Bill this year to see that it took us nearly 20 Clauses and seven Schedules to get rid of Schedule A? Would not that have been a very appropriate subject for an explanatory memorandum?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps. But happily we got rid of Schedule A.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take arising out of the report of the Lord President of the Council on unemployment on the North-East Coast.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 2nd July.

Mr. Jay: As it is over six months since the noble Lord was appointed to this job, cannot the Prime Minister say whether we are going to have at least some concrete proposals arising out of the report? Is it to be published?

The Prime Minister: In the first place, many of the concrete short-term proposals have already been implemented on a very large scale, both by separate administrative acts and by the Budget. We are now dealing with the longer-term view of the future of this area. I hope that this statement will be made before the Recess. There has been no delay.

Mr. Bourne-Arton: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's long-standing and

intimate knowledge of the affairs of the North-East. Is he aware that there is some danger of events overtaking us unless there is the utmost urgency in proceeding in this matter? Has it been reported to him that only last week the English Electric Company announced that it was closing a locomotive factory in Darlington and thus throwing a further 900 men out of work?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I appreciate that. But short-term measures are operating and I hope will be successful and a great advance made. This is a longer-term review and I hope that we shall be able to announce proposals about it before the House rises.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of his statement that an announcement will be made before the House rises, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the House an assurance that his Government will act and will do something for the North-East? Is he aware that at present only 18 new firms have come to the North-East in recent years and 33 firms have closed down, with a loss of employment to over 2,000, and that the emigrant figures from the North-East are still running at around 12,500 a year averaging over recent years?

The Prime Minister: There is a considerable improvement already—

Mr. Popplewell: No.

The Prime Minister: —by the short-term measures taken on a wide scale. The point we are discussing is something quite different, the longer-term review of the future of this area over a longer period. That is a separate and quite different problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECURITY

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that he has now been informed of all the occasions on which warnings of possible security risks were given to Ministers by members of the Civil Service or of the security services of which he was not apprised at the time.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answers which I have already given on similar Questions.

Mrs. Castle: Why is the Prime Minister so evasive? Can he tell the House, simply and precisely for once, whether he is now aware of all those cases in which appropriate action ought to be taken, and that he has taken such action?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Lady need have no anxiety on this account.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend, equally, say what reports he has received from the security authorities about any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Prime Minister: I should not like to add anything more to what I have said.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not a supplementary question of that kind, containing such an innuendo, completely out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I should be greatly assisted in ruling on the matter had I in fact heard it. I literally did not hear it. Would the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) be good enough to repeat it?

Mr. Ridley: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the innuendo in the Question—[Hon. Members:"No, repeat it."]—whether he has received any reports from the security authorities about hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Manuel: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

The Prime Minister: I repeat that I have nothing to add to what I said.

Mr. Speaker: I was getting a"prompt" for the purpose of giving a Ruling. I do not see anything out of order in that.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)"recapped" on the question, he did not give it in the precise terms, as Hansard will show. He attempted a cowardly withdrawal, because he knew—[Hon. Members:"Order."]—if I may say so—[Hon. Members:"Order."]—

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us occupymore of Question Time than we need. Would the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) oblige me by giving his version, so that I may have both versions?

Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order—

Mr. C. Pannell: I am on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether he would inform the House of any threat to security—[Hon. Members:"No."] It obviously Mr. Speaker, was a reflection upon the trustworthiness of hon. Members of this House, and I think that it calls for a withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker: I am in a considerable difficulty because I did not in fact hear the supplementary question and I cannot get an agreed version. It is very difficult to give a Ruling without knowing what was said. I think that I shall have to postpone it until I can see the supplementary question in writing, as I cannot get an agreed version.

Mr. P. Williams: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you will give a Ruling on some words clearly understood to be used when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), on a point of order, referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as wanting to make a"cowardly withdrawal". Is not the phrase"cowardly withdrawal" out of order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is. But this is getting complicated. It is getting too confused with words. Accordingly, I must ask the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to withdraw the adverb from his submission on a point of order.

Mr. C. Pannell: rose—rose

Mr. Bellenger: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman appears not to have understood the position.

Hon. Members: Do not withdraw.

Mr. C. Pannell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, as you are not prepared to adjudicate on the original statement, it seems to me reasonably fair that you


should postpone any request for me to withdraw until such time as you have read it.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is right. I want to find out what was the original cause of the trouble and I cannot. But on any basis that I can now conceive the adverb was wrongly used. The point is not whether it is true or untrue, which will turn on the form of the supplementary question, but whether it is in order to put it in that way. That is the point. So, if the hon. Member will oblige me.

Mr. Pannell: Out of respect to you, Sir, I withdraw the word"cowardly", and I substitute the words"altered" and"evasive".

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the word"coward", within the memory of the Prime Minister and certain other hon. Members, was used by the late Lloyd George in this House when he pointed to the Government and said,"There sit the cowards"? He was not asked to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to rule upon my predecessor's Rulings or absence of Rulings. In that form clearly there was no occasion.

Mr. H. Wilson: Whatever the arguments about the admissibility or otherwise of the word"cowardly"—and I well remember the Ruling under your Speakership during the Finance Bill when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir G. Nabarro) objected to the use of the word"cowardly", which was a point on which he was sensitive because of certain legal actions which had happened—it was allowed. Surely we are getting Rulings on the minor issue and not on the major issue, and the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I respectfully submit, has not been dealt with. A suggestion has been made about hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House and we have had no Ruling about it. That is the important question.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member will clearly understand my difficulty. It was said on the one hand that it was and on the other that it was not. Since I did not hear the words and cannot

get an agreed record on them until I look at the Official Report, I cannot see a way out of the difficulty.

Mr. Ridley: I wish to withdraw any suggestion contained in my supplementary question which went beyond the suggestion contained in the original Question.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to all the hon. Members concerned for getting us out of our current difficulty.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Before this matter is turned into a joke, is there not a serious side to this question? It may be very clever to make suggestions about my hon. and right hon. Friends without any foundation whatever, but would hon. Members opposite, perhaps the Prime Minister, realise that those who live in glass-houses should not throw that kind of stone?

Mr. Speaker: What the Prime Minister should or should not recognise does not raise a point of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I wish to make it entirely clear that I do not withdraw anything in my original Question, because I believe that the House ought to be apprised of any security risks which may have been discovered from whatever side they might come.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (SITUATION)

Mr. Bottomley (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the further difficulties which have necessitated sending further troops to British Guiana.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The general strike continues, and with it tension in Georgetown has been mounting. Although there has been little open violence, attempts have been made to damage Government buildings with explosives. However, in the past few days, there has been a number of inter-racial clashes in the rural areas, particularly on the coast east of the capital.
This has placed an increased strain on the security forces. Consequently, the Governor decided last night, with the agreement of the Premier, to ask for the despatch of one additional company, to reinforce the existing garrison of one British battalion. The troops are now on their way.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will happen if this further contingent of troops fails to stop the present troubles? Can he give further consideration to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that we might send a Parliamentary mission, which could at least be said to be reasonably impartial?

Mr. Sandys: With all respect, I submit to the House that at this particular juncture I doubt whether a Parliamentary mission would be helpful.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is now several weeks since this proposal was made, during which time the situation has gone from bad to worse. I think that everyone who has studied the situation knows the very serious difficulties. It is not easy to take sides in this matter. That is what is wrong—there is a lot of interference going on which should not be tolerated in the area.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to be in any sense disrespectful to hon. Members, but will not he agree that if a small delegation of about four hon. Members, two very senior members from the Government side for whom we would have great respect and two from our side, could go out, and bring back a report, that would be a more objective assessment than one of the ex parte kind which some of us are receiving?
Unless the right hon. Gentleman can go himself—as he ought to have done long ago—will he give consideration to the idea of a small delegation of hon. Members, Privy Councillors and perhaps other senior Members, going and then making a report to the House?

Mr. Sandys: I have been thinking for some little while whether to go myself, but I thought it better to wait. I had hoped that this strike would come to an end, but, unfortunately, it continues. Since there is no immediate prospect of

it coming to an end, I am considering the possibility of going to British Guiana myself some time next week.

Mr. Wall: If this unfortunate situation drags on, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that other Commonwealth countries might be able to give some assistance in solving these very intractable problems?

Mr. Sandys: I should be glad of any help from any quarter, but at the moment I do not think outside missions would help us to resolve the difficulty.

Miss Lee: Without wishing to be in any way offensive to the Minister, may I suggest to him that in the situation in British Guiana a party from this House, made up of different points of view in the House and including Members who have personal knowledge of the Prime Minister, Mr. Jagan and others concerned, might have a better chance of bringing back the sort of report that we want than the Minister, who would be very much hampered by official associations?

Mr. Sandys: I think that I have already answered that question. The first thing to do is to try to bring the situation back to normal. Then we can try to resolve the constitutional deadlock which led to the breakdown of the conference on independence last autumn.

Mr. W. Yates: Has the Minister anything to say about the extraordinary shooting which took place from the Prime Minister's car and the police escort on the crowd? Is he aware that I have cables from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. d'Aguiar, about the position? Will he say whether he is going to reopen conversations about the Constitution?

Mr. Sandys: I have just said that I will go next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 8TH JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

There will be a debate on Housing and Urban Land Prices, on the appropriate Votes.

At seven o'clock, opposed Private Business, set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is expected that this will be disposed of in sufficient time to allow the Housing debate to be resumed.

Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the British Museum Bill.

Motion on the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations.

TUESDAY, 9TH JULY—Second Reading of the Public Order Bill [Lords], which it is hoped to obtain early enough for the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure to start at a reasonable hour.

WEDNESDAY, 10TH JULY—Debate on the Rochdale Report on the Major Ports of Great Britain (Command No. 1824).

Second Reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Motion on the Gas (Borrowing Powers) Order.

THURSDAY, 11TH JULY—Second Reading of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Bill.

Motion on the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation Accounts.

FRIDAY, 12TH JULY—Debate on the First and Special Reports of the Estimates Committee on Dental Services.

And, if there is time, on their Sixth and Special Reports on the Timing of the Presentation of Supplementary Estimates.

MONDAY, 15TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee.

A debate will take place on Science.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes, under Standing Order No. 16.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—as I am sure he is—that there can be no guarantee that the Second Reading of the Public Order Bill, on Tuesday, will go through with the speed for which he hopes, particularly in view of the feeling of hon. Members that the Bill has been misconceived from the start? The right hon. Gentleman

will recollect the exchanges which we had about it the day that it was very quickly introduced in another place.
In those circumstances, will he take note of what I am sure is the widespread feeling on both sides of the House, that if the debate on the Public Order Bill continues longer than he hopes, it will be quite intolerable for the House to be asked to deal with the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, if that is reached too late at night, in view of the very strong feelings both for and against this Measure which many hon. Members have?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—I think that I am right in saying this—that the Government, as well as the Opposition, regard the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure as entirely a matter for private Members and that the Whips will be off in respect of that Measure?

Mr. Macleod: I agree with everything that the Leader of the Opposition said—which makes a nice change. The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure is not a Government Measure and there is no question of the Whips being on for it. I entirely agree that it would not be desirable to take it late at night, and that is why I worded the business for Tuesday as carefully as I did.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask a question about the business for Monday week? Will my right hon. Friend be a little more specific as to what the debate will be about, because it is within the recollection of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the last time we had a debate on science as such it proved to be too wide a subject for us to get anything constructive out of the debate?

Mr. Macleod: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a Supply day and that, therefore, it is the Opposition who indicate what they wish to discuss. It has not yet been announced whether it will be on the appropriate Votes or on a Motion. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition can help on this matter, but perhaps we could clear the matter up now or I could make a subsequent business announcement.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not clear to the right, hon. Gentleman, since the Question


will be put from the Chair about 9.30 p.m., that the debate must be on a Vote and cannot be on a Motion? The Votes will relate to the Minister for Science and other related subjects, and we shall obviously make our own speeches, but, the Votes having been tabled, it will be entirely a matter for hon. Members and the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide what is in order. We shall put the Votes down and presumably anything which is in order on the Votes relating to science could be discussed.

Mr. Wade: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention that there should be a debate on the case of Mr. Harold Philby and the recent disclosures relating to him?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I have no such intention.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Last wek, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) asked the Leader of the House whether he would find time for legislation about an airport authority. Is the Leader of the House aware that London Airport urgently requires something to be done about it? As the previous Minister of Aviation said that there would be such an authority, will he give this matter his urgent attention? London Airport is rapidly becoming a disgrace to this country and legislation is required to deal with it.

Mr. Macleod: I am well aware that legislation is necessary to deal with this matter, but I know that my hon. Friend realises that it cannot come into the busines for next week or, at this stage, into the business for this Session. But I agree that it is an important matter and, of course, I take note of what he said. A good deal of study on this matter has taken place.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss a Motion which I put down with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) relating to a personal statement which I made to the House on 10th November, 1955? If, for any reason, he does not like the terms in which the Motion is drafted, will he agree to enter into discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and myself with a view to an agreed Motion which will enable the House formally to permit me to withdraw that personal statement?

[That this House deplores the fact that on 10th November, 1955, the hon. Member for Brixton was prevailed on by the formal assurances of the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, to make a personal statement withdrawing and regretting charges and disclosures regarding Mr. Harold Philby, which the Government now belatedly admit to be true.]

Mr. Macleod: Naturally, in my capacity as Leader of the House I shall be very glad to discuss with the hon. Member and anybody he chooses to bring with him any matter concerning the business of the House. I can deal only with the Motion which now stands on the Order Paper, and I certainly do not propose to find time to debate that.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Leader of the House say when we shall have a debate on foreign affairs? When is the House to have an opportunity to discuss, in addition to the problems of and preparations for war, the problems of the Yemen, Vietnam, Malaysia, Cuba, Berlin, and other problems which are before the United Nations and which are likely to lead to breaches of the peace?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot suggest that there is any possibility of another foreign affairs debate at present. The hon. Member knows that we had a two-day debate on the subject, ending last night. On one particular matter which he mentioned, and only on one aspect of that in relation to the Yemen, there will be a statement in a few moments.

Mr. P. Williams: As the Government are to make an announcement in due course on policy in relation to the North-East, will my right hon. Friend agree that this would be a highly desirable subject to be debated by the House as soon as possible?

Mr. Macleod: It certainly is an extremely important subject and no doubt one which is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition as the Opposition are considering the remaining days which are available. [Hon. Members:"Government time."] I cannot provide an opportunity within Government time. We have spent less time in this Session on legislation and more time on debate than, I think, in any single Session since


the war. That charge cannot be laid against the Government. There are opportunities available to the Opposition.

Dr. King: On Wednesday, we are to debate the Rochdale Report. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ports of Britain and the areas around them have been anxiously awaiting some declaration of Government policy and of its attitude to the Report? Shall we merely have a general debate on the Report on Wednesday, or will the Leader of the House precede it by presenting a White Paper setting out the Government's views?

Mr. Macleod: The debate would take place on a Government Motion, which I think has already been tabled, welcoming the statement made by the Government on Wednesday, 6th March, on the Report. Naturally, my right hon. Friend will develop that statement when he opens the debate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the Leader of the House indicate when time might be found to debate the Wilson Report on Noise? Will he say whether the Government intend to take effective action on this important subject?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot suggest an early opportunity for debate, but I very much agree about the importance of this subject. The statement made in another place, repeated in this morning's HANSARD, shows the seriousness with which the Government regard this problem.

Mr. Wigg: Has the right hon. Gentleman given very careful consideration to the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)? If he has, has he borne in mind the fact that if a wrong has been done to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton, it is a wrong which has been done to the House as a whole? This House lives by precedent, and if this wrong is not put right, then in twenty or thirty years' time this precedent will guide a future Speaker in the conduct of a similar matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman not remember that recently, when some of the cards were in my hand, I went out of my way to meet the Government in this matter so that a similar situation could

be put right? Would not the Leader of the House reconsider his duty to the House and find time, not by discussions with my hon. Friend and myself—that would be presumptuous—but by discussions between the usual channels to find a form of words which could be tabled without encroaching on either Government or Opposition time and in the interests of the House as a whole?

Mr. Macleod: I readily responded at once to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), and if wider consultations are required I should be glad to have them, too. The point which I have made is that I certainly could not accept any suggestion in the terms of the Motion which is on the Order Paper at present.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is fundamentally a House of Commons matter? The issue raised at this stage—I should hope that he would take this view—does not go into the wider questions of the Philby affair, which might be a matter for other handling. This is the second case in recent weeks where a problem has arisen about a personal statement, and we have no precedent to guide us in the whole history of Parliament, in Erskine May, and all the rest of it. It is important to get some declaration about it.
Would the Leader of the House consider having discussions either through the usual channels or with my hon. Friends on the basis that perhaps an agreed Motion might be found which would enable the House to dispose of this matter quickly and without any controversial or acrimonious debate on the wider issues in order to get the record straight, because, as I say, this is a House of Commons matter?

Mr. Macleod: I recognise that it is a House of Commons matter, and I have said that I would have discussions either with the right hon. Member or with the hon. Members for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need for an early debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland, in view of our heavy unemployment and the difficulties facing our shipbuilding, aviation and textile industries?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, certainly. I am reasonably confident that we will be able to have such a debate before we rise for the Recess.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question for his consideration when he is picking the days for the various debates? Will he give the House an assurance that the Minister of the Crown who is responsible for the Department concerned will be present in the House for the debate and will give priority to being here rather than accept engagements outside?

Mr. Macleod: Obviously, there is a supplementary question behind that question, and I am not informed on what the hon. Member has in mind.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that before he enters into any conversations with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and those who support him he will seek the views of some Members of Parliament who have been here for a long time? Is he aware that I have a great deal to say before we get involved in any Motion of any kind? I support the view that the Motion of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) should be debated, but I am a bit tired of hearing hon. Members opposite talking as if they were the only people in the world—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that the hon. Lady has a great deal to say about the matter may take it outside business questions.

Mr. Snow: Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago I secured permission from the House to introduce a very modest Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1961? Since the various outbreaks of typhoid are imposing strain on an increasing number of small authorities, will the Government provide some sort of help to get this very modest Bill through?

Mr. Macleod: I could not give that undertaking. As the hon. Member knows, the time for private Members' legislation in the ordinary way has been exhausted. There are many claimants and I cannot select from them.

Mr. Grimond: When the right hon. Gentleman is giving further thought to the Motion of the hon. Member for

Brixton (Mr. Lipton), will he consider whether there is not a perfectly good precedent for dealing with this? Is it not the custom of the House that when a Minister unwittingly misleads a Member of the House so that that Member, in turn, misleads the House, that Minister comes to the House and makes a statement, without prejudice, explaining the matter and making it clear that he unwittingly misled the Member in question?

Mr. Macleod: This subject is a great deal more complicated than that. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the speech of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) in November, 1955, he will find that the hon. Member was interrupted on at least six occasions and that the majority of the interruptions were made by hon. Members on his own side, asking him to substantiate what he was saying. It is quite unfair to suggest that it was solely the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, which led to this situation.

Dr. Bray: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time to debate the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries dealing with the electricity supply industry in view of the questions which it raises about the security of electricity supply and the public importance of maintaining that security?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but the problems of the nationalised industries are dealt with under a sort of quota system, and I do not think that there is any time available.

Mr. Wigg: May I say to the Leader of the House that I entirely agree with the view which he has expressed about the 1955 debate? That is why I appeal to him as the Leader of the House.

Mr. Macleod: Exactly. That is why I say—perhaps to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—that I am, of course, prepared to discuss this matter with any Member of the House. I do not limit that in any way at all. But I think that it is a very much more complicated matter than the Leader of the Liberal Party suggests.

Dame Irene Ward: Let us have the truth.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for offering to have talks with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton and myself. As this is a House of Commons matter, it would be entirely proper for the two Front Benches to discuss this matter first.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is addressing me, that is not a point on which I can express any view. I was rather hoping that we might bring business questions to an end soon.

THE YEMEN (BRITISH SERVICE PERSONNEL)

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement on the British Service men detained in the Yemen.
I am glad to be able to confirm to the House that the 16 British Service men who have been held prisoner in the Yemen have arrived safely in Aden. I believe that they are all well.
The terms of the agreement under which they were released have been negotiated on our behalf by Mr. Cortada, the United States Chargé ďAffaires in Taiz. We authorised him to tell the Yemen authorities that we regretted the accidental crossing of the frontier, and that all possible steps would be taken by the British military authorities concerned to see that there would be no repetition of the incident.
As to the payment of compensation for casualties incurred by the Yemenis in the skirmish, as well as for damage to property, we left Mr. Cortada discretion within the limit of a few thousand pounds. I do not know the exact details yet, but the sum of £150,000, mentioned in the Press today, is not correct. It is probable that it will be in the region of 150,000 shillings local currency, which is equivalent to £7,500. It might be less.
A telegram has already been sent to Mr. Rusk, expressing the thanks of Her Majesty's Government for the devoted work which Mr. Cortada and other members of the United States Foreign Service have put in during this unfortunate affair. Without their skill and patience we could not have got the men back so soon.

Mr. Gordon Walker: May I express the very great pleasure, naturally, of right hon. and hon. Members on this side at the release of our men and say how glad we are on behalf of their relatives. I am also glad that the Government had the good sense to express regret for what was clearly an accident, and we should like to associate ourselves with the hon. Gentleman's thanks for the good offices of the American authorities.
Now that this matter has been closed in this sense, we should like one or two matters which are not clear from the statement to be cleared up. We should like the original question to be cleared up, namely, how it came about that this operation was ever undertaken at all and how men and women were sent on so dangerous an operation so near the border, resulting in the expenditure of taxpayers' money—it may be only £7,500—but particularly in the death of four British soldiers, which has caused very great anxiety. We will want this to be cleared up in a further statement in due course. We are very concerned about the way in which this operation was undertaken and authorised by someone, and we want to know about that.

Mr. Thomas: I can quite appreciate the right hon. Member's anxiety about the details of this matter. As he will realise, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and I cannot possibly answer it. However, I know that my right hon. Friend will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. W. Yates: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to convey the thanks of the House to Dr. Lukman, who spent some time in Taiz and who came up from Aden to assist in the release of these soldiers? Secondly, would he agree that it is time that Her Majesty's Government had a look at the borders and the frontiers between the Protectorate and the Yemen? Will he consider whether it is really worth while Her Majesty's Government going on recognising the Government of the Imam of the Yemen?

Mr. Thomas: The question of recognition is a rather different one. I will certainly note my hon. Friend's other questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not an inquiry into this incident being conducted by the War


Office and will not a report be made to the House when the inquiry has been completed? Can the hon. Gentleman say when the report will be made available to the House?

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, I cannot answer those questions, because they are solely within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence. My right hon. Friend said, however, when informing the House about this matter, that an inquiry was being put in train.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say whether the transport used by our soldiers has been returned? Will he recognise that this whole business has resulted in considerable loss of prestige to this country? Will he, therefore, give every consideration to making the investigation as public as possible and to publishing the report to allay anxiety?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give full consideration to what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it the fact that these troops went into the Yemen in uniform and not in mufti?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir, that is quite true.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend will remember that in the earlier descriptions of the incident the word"ambush" was fairly frequently used. Would he not agree that an ambush presupposes that it is known that the people to be ambushed are likely to come? Does he now have confirmation, however, that this was a pure accident and that there were no troops deliberately on the other side of the frontier in Yemen laying up to catch our people?

Mr. Thomas: I must apologise to my hon. Friend and the House, but I have no information about the details of this unfortunate incident.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[23RD ALLOTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1963–64

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964 for the following services connected with Housing in Scotland, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES 1963–64



£


Class III, Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department
10


Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Development Department
10


Class VI. Vote 4, Housing, Scotland
10


Class VI, Vote 8, Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
10


Total
£40

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (HOUSING)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. James McInnes: We are today considering the Civil Estimates in respect of the services connected with housing in Scotland. It can truly be said that Scotland has never been without a housing problem. The eighteenth century problem was created by the one-room rural cottage, with its mud and stone walls and turf-covered roof. The nineteenth century problem was an urban problem created by the tenement.
The tenemental system was Continental rather than British. I believe that Edinburgh and Stirling introduced it into this country when the primary function of those two towns was that of defence. It comprised tenements of three, four and five storeys with their one or two rooms and kitchen, with one water closet on each landing common to several tenements, involving probably 12 to 16 persons. The tenements thus became the standard type of Scottish working-class


house. Today, we know that the three-storey and four-storey tenements contain as many as 16 houses accommodating 70 to 90 people and that we still have, in 1963, tens of thousands of such tenemental houses.
Early this century, the awakening consciousness of the people to the inadequacies of their housing conditions eventually led to the appointment in 1911 of a Royal Commission. That Commission reported in 1917. I have quoted this Report before in a housing debate and I do not apologise for quoting it again. The Commission said:
We found insufficient supplies of water, unsatisfactory provision of drainage, widespread absence of decent sanitary conveniences, the persistence of unspeakably filthy middens, whole townships unfit for human occupation, grass overcrowding everywhere, the huddling of the sexes together—clotted masses of shims in our great cities.
The Commission concluded by saying that commercial enterprise had failed to keep pace with the demand for houses, that the State must accept the responsibility of meeting the housing needs of the people and that the obligation of carrying out the programme should be placed or imposed on the local authorities. As a result of that Report, the State in 1919 accepted the responsibility and arranged for the local authorities to carry out the programme that I have mentioned.
I have deliberately mentioned the Commission's Report for the simple reason that many of the conditions described therein still exist to the present day, forty-six years after the publication of the Report. Hon. Members will find these conditions in the Cowcaddens and Carlton areas of Glasgow, in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen and, indeed, throughout Scotland. We must recognise that more than one-quarter of our total stock of houses in Scotland are more than 100 years old. Is not that a shocking state of affairs?
I ask the Committee to consider the age groups of our existing stock of houses. We have in Scotland 471,000 houses that were built before 1860, 320,000—private enterprise houses the lot of them—built between 1860 and 1914 and 169,000 private enterprise houses built between 1915 and 1962, giving a total of 960,000 private enterprise houses

in Scotland. We have, of course, since 1919 built 660,000 local authority houses, thus giving us a total of 1,620,000 houses in Scotland.
The significant feature of these figures is that we have 471,000 houses that were built before 1860 and are, therefore, 100 years old. These houses are in the main the tenemental type of house and are nearly all owned by private landlords. These houses are rapidly decaying through lack of maintenance, despite the fact that in 1954 the Government introduced the Housing (Rents and Repairs) (Scotland) Act, which enabled landlords to increase their rents by 40 per cent. provided that they carried out repairs.
Unfortunately, the 40 per cent. was not sufficiently attractive to the Scottish landlord. In the Rent Act, 1957, the 40 per cent. was increased to 50 per cent.; there could be a 50 per cent. increase in rentals, provided that the landlord carried out the repair. Again, the landlords did not respond. What the landlords in Glasgow and elsewhere are doing is not to carry out the repairs but to abandon the whole of the property completely. These properties are naturally houses between 90 and over 100 years old. When the landlord abandons the property, the property invariably becomes dangerous.
When this happens, the local authorities, in the interests of the tenants who are still in the properties and in the interests of the public in general, have to step in and rehouse the families and then demolish the tenement at the expense of the local authority. Even private landlords will not demolish the properties that they abandon. So the local authorities are compelled to do the work.
I know and appreciate the issues that arise as to the future ownership of the vacant sites. That is a very complicated question. Indeed, it almost qualifies for a debate by itself. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with that aspect. What concerns me this afternoon—right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will appreciate and agree—is that the failure of private landlordism to carry out repairs enormously intensifies our slum clearance problem in Scotland.
Perhaps we should examine now the extent of our slum problem in Scotland.


According to Cmnd. Paper 9685, published in February, 1956, Scotland had at that time 230,000 slum houses. I must point out, however, that when the Scottish Office was collating this information Glasgow and Edinburgh submitted provisional figures only. When the actual figures became available it was revealed that Scotland had about 300,000 slum houses as at 1956.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the rate at which these 300,000 slum houses are being demolished? I find, for example, from the Annual Report of the Scottish Development Department for 1962, page 33, that between January, 1956 and December, 1962—eight years—we demolished 91,749 slum houses. That gives us an average of 11,400 slum houses demolished each year. At this rate of progress it will take almost twenty years to demolish the 210,000 slum houses that still exist in Scotland today. This is a shocking state of affairs. It is indefensible that in what is almost the worst-housed country in Europe we are demolishing the slums only at the rate of 11,000 houses a year. We must also recognise that not only do we have the problem of slums; we also have throughout Scotland the problem of gross overcrowding.
Take, for example, the overcrowding problem confronting Glasgow. Glasgow has 208,000 privately owned and rented houses. It also has 121,000 municipally owned houses. No less than 124,000 of the 208,000 privately owned and rented houses—that is, 60 per cent. of all the privately rented houses in Glasgow—and one- and two-apartment houses and over 400,000 people live in them. Thirty-four thousand people live more than four persons to one room. Ninety-thousand people live more than three persons to one room. The majority of these houses have no hot water supply and no baths. Indeed, they have no internal conveniences of any kind. I ask hon. Members to think what this means to the people. I ask hon. Members to envisage the inconvenience, ill-health and misery which this over-crowding brings into their lives.
These conditions are not peculiar to Glasgow. They are to be found, perhaps to a lesser degree, throughout Scotland. I regard the small house as being

the curse of Scotland. Indeed, I am appalled when I realise that 70 per cent. of Scotland's municipal houses are three-apartment houses or less. In England and Wales, the comparable figure is 20 per cent. Why should the small house be imposed on Scotland? This Government have aggravated the situation by further reducing the size of council houses in Scotland. They reduced the size of council houses in Scotland from 941 sq. ft. in 1947 to 865 sq. ft. as from 1959. Thus, small-roomed houses were still further reduced in size.
In the knowledge of this background and recognising that we have a problem of tremendous magnitude, we are justified in asking ourselves, certainly in asking the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is being done to overcome this great social problem. In 1953, 39,548 houses were built. I think that I congratulated the Government at one of the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee on achieving that figure. I almost feel like withdrawing the congratulations at this stage. Year by year since 1953 the numbers have dwindled. Last year we did not reach 39,548 houses. We reached a figure of 26,761 houses. Thus, between 1953 and 1962 the number of local authority houses built dropped by almost 50 per cent.
Is not the Secretary of State utterly ashamed of himself? In the knowledge of the background of the problem which I have described, surely it is a shocking record to produce so few houses. It is all the more so when we compare our performance with that of other European countries. West Germany built 10·1 houses per 1,000 of population. Indeed, last year West Germany built 542,000 houses. The population there is somewhat similar to that of Great Britain as a whole. Great Britain completed only 6·1 houses per 1,000 of population as against Western Germany's 10·1 houses per 1,000 of population.
If we take Sweden or Denmark—reasonably comparable with Scotland—we find that Sweden built 9·8 houses per 1,000 of the population, Denmark 6·9 houses per 1,000, and Scotland 5·3 houses per 1,000. We are absolutely at the bottom of the league in the whole of Europe in the provision of houses. The reason for this is that we are devoting


far too little of the national resources to house building.
I do not ask the Secretary of State to accept that merely as my opinion. I can give him examples of people who think likewise. Mr. John Greve, a lecturer at the London School of Economics, estimated that we required in Britain no fewer than 425,000 houses a year over the next twenty years. That would mean approximately 42,000 a year in Scotland. The Alliance Building Society, in its 1961 report entitled The Housing Land Crisis, said that the number of dwellings completed each year should average 400,000 in Britain, or approximately 40,000 in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who, I believe, is Chairman of the Conservative Party Housing Committee, told the Conservative Party conference at Llandudno in October last year that during the next five years Great Britain will need 2½ million new houses. Five hundred thousand houses a year is the demand made by the hon. Member for Crosby, and I entirely agree with him.
It may well be that the Secretary of State will say that local authorities are free to build as many houses as they consider necessary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be so foolish asto say anything of the kind, because he must recognise that the greatest deterrent to local authorities building houses, not only in Scotland but in Britain as a whole, is the Government's policy of high interest rates. The intolerable burden which this policy imposes on local authorities makes it almost prohibitive for them to build houses. I give an example. I am quoting from a reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies).
The annual charge for a 60-year loan of £2,000 raised at the Public Works Loan Board's interest rates in 1950 was £72 1s. 6d. At the end of sixty years that loan will have cost the local authority £4,320. But at the interest rates which have to be paid today, it will cost the local authority at the end of sixty years no less than £7,140. So when a local authority sets out to build a house and borrows the money through the Public Works Loan Board, at the end of sixty

years that house has cost the local authority £7,140.
This is the burden which the local authorities have to face. The Government have failed to provide houses, but even on those which they do provide they impose on local authorities these financial provisions and strictures before they can qualify for subsidies.
During the last three years, we have had three Acts of Parliament, each containing a different financial formula to determine what subsidies local authorities will get in respect of their houses. I could go into details of these formulas in the 1962 Act and the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act of the present year, but I shall not weary the Committee by doing so. I conclude by saying that in this modern age it is almost criminal that tens of thousands of our people should be condemned to live a lifetime in grossly overcrowded and squalid conditions.
Today, we talk in terms of our affluent society, but when we speak of housing we talk in terms of public squalor. The provision of a decent home is fundamental to the happiness of people. Without a decent home the framework of a happy life does not exist. A home in which to live is not only a basic human need, but a basic human right. To provide the homes that are necessary we must have a Government with a dynamicpolicy. It is obvious that the Government have no policy for the greatest social evil that confronts Scotland. I urge them to get out and make room for a party which has a policy.

4.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has made the sort of speech we have come to expect from him; an interesting and clear speech in which at times he was critical. I make no complaint about that. I, too, welcome this opportunity to debate Scottish housing. This is an important matter and the present time is appropriate to take stock of the progress that has been made and to consider the future. The background to the present situation was given in a White Paper which was presented to Parliamentlast month by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government.
I will begin by developing the subject of housing in Scotland and by indicating the way in which we are dealing with the problem. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said, there is no doubt that over the last ten years the housing situation in Scotland has greatly improved. In that time more than 300,000 more houses have been built, more than 90,000 slum houses have been demolished and more than 30,000 houses have been improved. There are still shortages in many areas, but the figures recently published suggest that the excess of households over houses in many areas is not very great.
On the other hand, I freely admit that we still have a vast problem of unfit and unsatisfactory houses which must be dealt with at a greater rate. While there is no doubt that we have this housing problem, it is changing in character and our policies and methods must be adapted to meet this change.
One of the important aspects of housing that has become clearer in recent years is that houses are needed not only for social improvement, but also as an essential element in promoting and sustaining economic development. This is most clearly seen in the new towns, where the existence of a continued and planned programme of housing development, covering a variety of standards and types of accommodation, has not only made possible the build-up of a balanced labour force but has also encouraged new industrial and commercial development to take place. The same process has been going on in some of the overspill receiving areas, where the atmosphere of expansion and enterprise created by the initiative of the receiving local authority has encouraged new industrial growth.
The need for this kind of housing, closely linked with industrial development, has called for great efforts from the local authorities adjacent to the new motor vehicle factories at Bathgate and Linwood. Both the authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association are putting a great deal of effort in these areas to provide, in a comparatively short time, houses for the workers in a wide variety of skills who are needed to make

a success of this developing industry. But there is still some way to go. A large proportion of the employees are, of course, being drawn from Glasgow under overspill arrangements. So this housing development is providing both a firm base for the industrial development and making an important contribution to the relief of congestion and redevelopment in Glasgow.
Much smaller in number, but still important, are the houses provided for the workers with special skills whom these factories have had to bring from England and elsewhere. This question of houses for key workers is often of crucial importance to the growth of both new and existing industry, not only because it enables the firm to recruit the best key men on which the employment of many others depends, but also because the willingness or unwillingness of a local authority to help in this way can make or mar the impression made by a district on an industrialist who is giving consideration to the question of where and how he is going to expand.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Under-Secretary accept from me that those of us who yesterday visited Linwood and Bathgate as the guests of the Society of Motor Manufacturers had it impressed on us that the provision of housing has been ludicrously inadequate? This was the opinion of men like Mr. Geoffrey Rootes and others, who believe that this burden should be borne by the central Government and that there is no other way out of the problem.

Mr. Leburn: I cannot accept that from the hon. Member in the exaggerated way he has put it. I would agree with him to the extent—

Mr. William Ross: If the Under-Secretary cannot accept it, will he give us the figures?

Mr. Leburn: —that a great many houses have been built both by West Lothian County Council, Whitburn and Blackburn.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows as well as I do that it is extremely difficult to dovetail the exact number of houses into the exact number of workers required at any particular time. The programmes of these local authorities, both in the east and


west, are being so arranged that the requisite number of houses will be available. However, I recognise that it means that a certain number of workers may have to travel to work for a somewhat longer period than would be wholly desirable.

Mr. Dalyell: They asked for 240 houses and they got 10.

Mr. Leburn: That may be so, but I can assure the hon. Member that plans are going ahead now.

Mr. McInnes: rose—

Mr. Leburn: I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow me to finish my remarks on this aspect.
Within a comparatively short time these requirements will be satisfied. I pay tribute, rather than being critical, to those local authorities which have done so much to provide houses for incoming workers. I know how difficult it is for an authority to provide houses for incomers, often seemingly at the expense of their own people. On reflection, I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that this can play a vital part in attracting and sustaining new industrial development. I hope that those authorities which have been reluctant to help industry in this way will come to see the long-term advantages that it can bring them.
In addition to building houses in the right number and in the right places, it is important to have enough houses of the right kind. We all know that it is important for our future to attract and keep in Scotland a higher proportion of the scientists, engineers and technologists who we train. These are often people who are not looking for and, indeed, should not look for, a subsidised house. We must see that their needs are met. Some local authorities have undertaken this task and have built special schemes of houses for letting at cost rents, but it is not primarily their job.
The Government see this need being met in a number of ways, and the first is by encouraging expansion of private-enterprise-built houses for sale. This form of housing has increased substantially in recent years. In 1962, it was nearly 8,000 houses—the highest figure since 1937—but, as the White Paper indicates, the Government wish to see

owner-occupation grow still further, and this is particularly true for Scotland.
The abolition of Schedule A Income Tax for owner-occupiers will help. The building societies have a vital part to play. The White Paper refers to the talks that the Government have had with the Building Societies Association, and I am sure that the greater flexibility in the terms the societies can now offer—lower initial deposits and longer terms of repayment—will encourage this trend still further.
In addition to those who wish to own their own houses, there are many who would prefer to rent a house at an economic rent if one were available. For example, there are those who do not wish to settle permanently in a particular area. As a first step to meeting this demand, the Scottish Special Housing Association is to build houses to let at cost rents. These schemes will, at first, be small, but I am confident that they will show what can be done in this direction, and will encourage others to follow. The S.S.H.A. has been making a considerable contribution to Scottish housing, not only in its efforts in the erection of buildings, but, equally important, by the part it has been playing in putting into practice new ideas. The schemes I have just mentioned are a further example of the continuing contribution the Association can make. But these efforts must be supplemented.

Mr. Ross: Then can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the Scottish Special Housing Association built fewer houses last year than at any other time since the war? We do not want words; we want performance, related to reality in Scotland.

Mr. Leburn: The hon. Gentleman knows that the S.S.H.A. has a great many houses under erection at the present time.
Hon. Members will recall that in the 1962 Housing Act, £3 million was set aside for lending to housing associations for building at cost rents and co-operative ownership. The reaction to this scheme has, I admit, been slow, but that does not mean that nothing has been happening. A great deal of preliminary work has been done, and the Housing Corporation visualised in the White Paper could give these associations a great deal of help to enable them to play an essential part in providing housing.
Important as these developments are—and I think that they are supremely important if we are to have a properly balanced growth in Scotland—the bulk of our new houses in the coming years must continue to be provided by local authorities. Thenumber of new houses completed by public authorities in 1962 was disappointing. In many areas, this was because of the change-over to redevelopment. For example, in Glasgow the difficulties of land acquisition and clearance reduced the rate of completions to just over 2,000.
In 1962, however, the number of houses started by public authorities—that is, the local authorities, the new towns and the S.S.H.A.—was 22,640, 20 per cent. higher than in 1961, and the number for which tenders were approved rose to over 27,000, 46 per cent. higher than in 1961. As a result, nearly 29,000 houses were under construction at the end of the year, as compared with 25,000 a year before, and this number had risen to over 31,000 at the end of the first quarter of1963, in spite of the very bad weather at the beginning of the year. I believe that even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central will grant that this is a big move forward.
If this new impetus—

Mr. Ross: Is the Under-Secretary aware that 20 per cent. of the houses are one-apartment and two-apartment houses?

Mr. Leburn: That may be. On the other hand, we get very many representations that more houses should be built for the elderly, and I have heard criticisms that we were building only 3 per cent. of houses for elderly people.
I can tell the hon. Member that if this new impetus is to be sustained we must take advantage of new techniques in building, which I believe can do so much to speed up the production of houses. With this in mind, my right hon. Friend last year appointed a small working party of officials of the Scottish Development Department and local authorities to report on how to secure the best use of these techniques.
The working party's report, which was circulated to all local authorities in February of this year, indicated that while the new industrialised systems give

a much greater speed of direction they are, in the main, designed for multi-storey flats, which are likely to represent only about 10 per cent. of future Scottish housing. There is, therefore, need for the systems to be extended to other types of house building. If this is to take place—and it could bring considerable economies both in time and money—larger programmes of building than can be offered by most individual authorities are needed, and this means co-operation between authorities.
My right hon. Friend has asked authorities to give urgent consideration to these suggestions, and a series of meetings with authorities has taken place to discuss the prospects of greater co-operation, and the possibility of forming consortia of local authorities for this purpose. As a result of these meetings, one of which was sponsored by Glasgow Corporation—and I am very grateful to the Corporation for taking an initiative in this matter—the authorities are considering in detail what form of co-operation might suit their particular needs. The Department is now collating this material, and will shortly circulate it to those concerned. Groups of suitable authorities will then be brought together with a view to setting up consortia.
For this more rapid building it is essential to have enough land available and, therefore, as part of the quinquennial review of development plans, my right hon. Friend has asked local planning authorities to ensure that for the coming period they have allocated enough land for housing, including private housing development. This is also a point to which the most careful attention is given in the examination of development plans submitted for the Secretary of State's approval.
So far, I have been dealing with the building of new houses, but what about the stock of existing houses? In the first place, I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central that the removal of those that are unfit—the slum houses—must be one of our top priorities. The current three-year programme of local authorities provides for the closing or demolition of some 40,000 houses by the end of 1964. By March, 1963, they had dealt with 13,353 of these, and I am reasonably confident that they will


achieve their aim. This, however, will largely depend on the speed with which new houses can be built, and this is one of the strongest reasons for my regarding the plans for greater co-operation and for the use of new techniques to be of such vital importance.
In addition to the houses that must be pulled down, there are very many houses which, in their present condition, are unsatisfactory in one way or another. We must take more vigorous steps to deal with them, not only for the sake of their present occupants but because, if nothing is done to them, they will deteriorate into slums and be an obvious further burden on our building resources. In other words, they must be improved so that they can measure up to present-day standards. With the introduction of standard improvement grant in 1959 there was a useful increase in the number of houses being improved each year, but the annual rate is still only about 4,000.
I admit that this is not nearly enough in relation to the problem with which we are faced, and the Government are determined to see that it is substantially increased. The means of doing this are described in the White Paper. This is not the occasion to discuss what should or should not be included in new legislation, but I do not think that I would be out of order in mentioning some of the defects of the present state of affairs which we see and which I recognise and acknowledge.
First, too few private owners, and especially landlords, are taking advantage of the improvement grants at present on offer. Secondly, it is often impracticable to deal with individual houses in tenement blocks. The only practicable way of dealing with these, as I see it, is often to deal with a whole tenement as a unit, frequently in such a way that the total number of houses in the tenements may have to be reduced. Thirdly, it is not sufficient merely to bring a few separate units up to standard. The whole of an area needs to be modernised and tidied up—both the houses themselves and the surrounding amenities—if the work is to produce its maximum return.
Possible solutions to these and other aspects of the problem are put forward in the White Paper, with full regard to

Scottish conditions, but before legislation is introduced we must have full consultations and discussions with the local authorities and with the property owners. I am looking forward to a meeting tomorrow with representatives of the local authorities, and I hope to arrange a meeting with the property owners very shortly.
The cost of housing has an impact on all these proposals, and in the broader field it is an important element in local government finance generally and in the claims it makes on the country's investment resources. The cost to the individual must also be approached in a reasonable way, and here the Government have made their position on local authority houses crystal clear. No one in genuine need of a house should be asked to pay more rent than he can reasonably afford. Equally, subsidies should not be used to benefit those who can afford to pay an unreasonable rent—reasonable in relation to his economic circumstances and to the real cost of housing.
It is disingenuous, to say the least, to talk as if only a very few people living in local authority houses are capable of paying a reasonable rent. Over 30 per cent. of Scotland's population live in local authority houses, and, while rents have risen in recent years, the average weekly rent last November was still only 12s. 3d. This can be compared with the average weekly earnings of adult male manual workers in Scotland which, at October, was £14 14s. 3d. This means that the average weekly rent of local authority houses was a shade under 4 per cent. of the average weekly earnings. I would agree that averages can be misleading, but even so, I do not think that anyone could claim that 4 per cent. was an unreasonable contribution for rent to come out of the wage packet.
Some local authorities have gone a long way towards achieving a more reasonable and more realistic level of rents and I appreciate their efforts to secure a balance between the interests of their citizens—ratepayers generally as well as council tenants. Many authorities are not yet working on this basis. The assertion is often made that a more rapid move towards reasonable rents would inflict unjustifiable hardship, but this, I believe, deliberately ignores the fact that proper rent rebate schemes


can ensure that all those who are in genuine need of help can obtain it. The experience of the S.S.H.A. shows how, by this means, reasonable rents can be charged without causing hardship.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman, on more than one occasion, has referred to reasonable rents, but so far has not stated what they are. As for the average wage in Scotland, there are many areas where £10 a week is the maximum, which is far less than the average.

Mr. Leburn: I admitted that averages could be misleading but, nevertheless, I thought that this painted the broad picture. The hon. Member knows that we have discussed reasonable rents on many occasions and my right hon. Friend has indicated to local authorities that as a good guide they can use G.A.V. Many hon. Members opposite were present when we discussed this on the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act in Standing Committee, where I made it perfectly clear that this was only a guide and that on occasions I even foresaw circumstances where local authorities couldcharge more than this.

Mr. Gourlay: Or less.

Mr. Leburn: I sometimes have the feeling that many of the Government's critics on rents secretly agree that the present unduly low level of Scottish rents threatens to undermine the stability of local government finance and to bear far too heavily on the ratepayers. No one expects to gain in popularity by increasing rents, especially in places where half or more of the houses are local authority houses, but local authorities have statutory duties and my right hon. Friend intends to fulfil his responsibility in seeing that these are discharged.
In a number of cases my right hon. Friend will be shortly asking some local authorities to look again at their position in this respect. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no question here of my right hon. Friend wanting to impose rent schemes on local authorities. Housing lies at the centre of local government, and that is where we want it to remain.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North): Really!

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend and I have been encouraged by the sensible approach to this long-standing problem of a good many local authorities and I hope that more will now make headway in the same direction. As I have already said, the cost of housing is a major element in the finance of both local and central governments and our subsidy system must always be kept up-to-date. In the White Paper my right hon. Friend made clear that he proposes to initiate discussions with the local authorities on the workings of the present subsidy system and to review with them the whole situation.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has just said that housing is really the centre of local government and that the Secretary of State does not want to impose rents. Does that mean that we shall have a Bill presented to us tomorrow which will repeal the powers which the Secretary of State took to impose a rent scheme, with all the might of the Act?

Mr. Leburn: In a debate like this I am sure that the hon. Lady would not expect me to anticipate legislation, but if she is expecting a Bill to be proposed along those lines she will be disappointed.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Gentleman talks about consulting local authorities after the White Paper has been issued. Isnot that putting the cart before the horse? Would it not have been more logical and reasonable for the Government to have consulted the local authorities first and to have issued the White Paper as a result of their consultations?

Mr. Leburn: No, Sir. The White Paper clearly laid down the lines of principle which the Government wish to follow, but made equally clear that we wanted to discuss certain matters with them.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie): Which White Paper?

Mr. Leburn: The White Paper on Housing.

Mr. McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The White Paper contains only two paragraphs referring to Scotland at all. There is nothing in it regarding Scotland except two small paragraphs. In which


of these two paragraphs are to be found the propositions which the hon. Gentleman is now outlining?

Mr. Leburn: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central really surprises me because, of all hon. Members—I include hon. Members on both sides—he, I should have said, probably does his homework best. I recommend him to read the White Paper on Housing. There are far more than two paragraphs making reference to Scotland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.

Mr. McInnes: And I can assure the Under-Secretary of State of what I say

Mr. Leburn: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman is not one who takes on a wager, because he would surely lose it on this occasion.
The total of 300,000 new houses during the past ten years is clear evidence of the Government's determination to press on with the improvement of Scotland's housing. The increases which have been made in the number of houses coming under construction, the forward plans of local authorities and new towns, the healthy growth of private enterprise building, and the development of a third arm of housing in the form of the new housing societies will all combine to make a target of at least 35,000 houses a year in Scotland attainable in the foreseeable future.
Such an increase is needed to match the problem, but in contemplating it we must take into account the capacity of the construction industry and the ever increasing demands made upon it. Today, we are concerned with housing, but new schools, new factories, new roads, new shops, new hospitals and the rest are all making increasing demands upon it. Increased efficiency and productivity in the building industry are, therefore, essential.
This increase in house building combined with a still stronger drive to remove unfit houses and improve unsatisfactory houses will ensure an overall improvement in the standard of housing accommodation to bring it into line with the general rise in the standard of living, and this is vital to both the economic growth and the social development of Scotland.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his peroration. It lived up to many of those which we have heard in the past and might, indeed, be said to have been taken from one of his former speeches. The trouble is that, between his perorations, the stones, bricks and lime which are turned into houses do not match his words. The figures which we have in the Reports prove that.
The hon. Gentleman started by emphasising that housing is necessary for social improvement. With that we agree. He said, also, that it is a necessary adjunct, or, I think he said, precursor of economic development. I do not propose to argue that, but it is part and parcel of economic development, as our new towns emphasise. He went on to say that housing encouraged new industrial progress to take place. I should have hoped that the reverse was true also, that new industrial progress would encourage new housing.
When the hon. Gentleman made this last suggestion, I wondered whether he had ever thought of looking on Cumbernauld as a commuter town. I throw that suggestion out to him because of the intensity of Glasgow's housing problem, the nearness of Cumbernauld and the necessity to maintain certain forms of transport which, at the moment, seem to be under threat.
The hon. Gentleman emphasised that it was necessary to improve and extend housing because of key workers. I have never yet found that key workers had any difficulty in getting houses. If the hon. Gentleman takes that as a very substantial reason for getting away from what is the main fact in regard to housing, then I leave that soporific with him. It seemed to me that, throughout his whole speech, the hon. Gentleman sought to shed what is basically a national burden on to the local authorities. The local authorities arehaving difficulty in solving the housing problem in Scotland today because the Government are running away from their national obligations.
I shall illustrate what I say with figures from the place which I know best, the City of Glasgow. Glasgow's housing problem, of course, is unequalled in the whole of Europe. Having seen most of the great cities of Europe, I can confirm


that from actual observation. The overall weakness of the Under-Secretary's approach to the problem is that, in looking at the social and industrial aspects and the requirements of key workers, he ignores the sheer physical fact of gross under-housing in the City of Glasgow and other parts of Scotland and the need for a more sustained and intense effort to solve the problem.
Today, almost half the houses in the city have only one or two rooms, and over 400,000 persons living in them. In central Glasgow two-thirds of the houses are only one-room or two-room houses, and 34,000 people live more than four persons in a room.
I do not suggest that the Under-secretary of State and the Secretary of State have not important things to talk about, but their most important occupation at the moment is each to listen to what I am saying, not to what they are saying to one another.
Ninety thousand people live more than three persons to the room. In one district, 12,000 people live on 18 acres of land.
This is not a new problem. Those of us who represent Glasgow constituencies have been saying these things for a long time. But the fact that we can repeat these figures still is proof that the Government's building or encouragement of building of new houses does not keep pace even with the decay of existing houses. So their attempted solutions of this problem have resulted, in Glasgow in particular, in a state of affairs which shows practically no change over the eighteen years I have been a Member of the House of Commons.
It is because of these facts that today, when we meet to approve a sum of £17,920,000 net for housing purposes, as against £18,375,000 last year, so that we are being called upon to vote £455,000 less today than we voted last year for dealing with a problem which is still as acute as it was last year, I cannot approve, nor can my colleagues approve, of the sum we are asked to vote. Also we are met to vote £20,950,000 for equalisation and transitional grants as against £20,230,000 last year. Again, I oppose that because the increase is totally insufficient. The hon. Gentleman stated

that local authorities were getting into financial trouble, and so they are because of the policy of the Government.
I want to look quickly at some of the figures which I have taken from the Report of the Scottish Development Department. On page 27 the Report tells us that in 1960 28,592 houses were built by all agencies. That was an increase of 1,299 over the year before, and, of course, I welcome that. In 1961, with this need for houses pressing on the Government and on the communities, 27,230 houses were built, a reduction of 1,362, and in 1962 the number built was 26,761, a still further decrease of 469, making a decrease of 1,831 over the last two years. I look at the graph on page 28 and observe that local authority building which the hon. Gentleman said was the major form of building accounted for 14,000 houses in 1960 and over 16,200 in 1962 compared with about 30,000 houses built each year in 1953 and 1954 by local authorities.
That represents a very drastic fall indeed, but the most remarkable fact is that in 1949, four years after the termination of a world war, when the Labour Government were beset by difficulties on all hands—labour, supply, and money—we erected 21,000 houses as against the 16,000 which were built with Government aid last year. That isa deplorable record by this Government. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies to the debate he will be able to offer a modicum of defence for a figure of that nature. While this has been going on, Glasgow, eighteen years after the war, has still 80,000 persons on its waiting list.
In achieving what has been achieved according to the standards of the Under-secretary of State modern methods of building have been used, and, of course, I pay tribute to these newer methods. I see them in the area where I live. The Pollokshaws scheme seems to be rising a storey every night due to industrial pre-fabrication. I should point out, not only did Glasgow Corporation lead the way with that, but it also led the Ministry of Public Building and Works. The Corporation got no encouragement from Government sources in undertaking that method of building, and the Corporation was actually the forerunner; and paved the way for the support which the Government are now giving to it.
Then, of course, I have seen the new homes of the Scottish Special Housing Association in my movements about the country. I pay tribute to what they have been doing in introducing precast concrete, computers, better techniques and work during winter, as I observed during the past winter in transit between my home and Renfrew Airport. We on this side welcome these advances. All that we feel is lacking is sufficient enthusiastic encouragement to greater efforts from the Government.
Of course, we are not blind to the slum clearances that are taking place, and as I have gone about I have praised such developments as the disappearance of the miners' rows in places like Nitshill and Inchinnan. We welcome the desegregation that has been going on. But the slums in Govan still remain. Yet in Cmd. 2050 the Secretary of State tells us that
No restriction is being placed on the number of houses which local authorities can build each year for housing families from unfit houses and the Government will continue to give every encouragement to stepping up the pace of slum clearance.
The right hon. Gentleman says"no restriction". Well, I dispute that, and later I shall give my reasons for disputing those words"no restriction".
Again, we do not spurn the present subsidy of £16 million, but in view of the fact, which the hon. Gentleman admitted, that good housing is one of the most powerful secular influences in shaping the better world we all want to see—I hope—I still regard a £16 million subsidy in the circumstances of today as being totally insufficient.
I have been looking at the three main factors in the building of a house and it is with these I want briefly to deal; the labour employed, the materials and the land, and the money which must be supplied. I agree, of course, as we all must, that the price of labour and materials enters into the rent of a house, but it is worth noting that a 2 per cent. increase in labour costs adds only £10 to the cost of a £2,200 house, but on the other hand a 2 per cent. increase in the interest charge adds £2,204 to its price.
I take the £2,200 house at 5 per cent. interest. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether that was a joke or not. We

are dealing with the figure over sixty years. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the terms of the loan; I take it that this is something with which he is completely familiar. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was laughing at the 5 per cent. interest figure as being a somewhat grotesque one. But I have worked out the average rate of interest paid by Glasgow Corporation between 1919 and 1962—over a period of forty-three years—and it is 4·79 per cent. In the light of the 6 or 6½ per cent. rate which we face today, that 5 per cent. figure is not unique.
At 5 per cent. interest, the £2,200 house costs £6,973 over sixty years, of which £4,773 is interest. At 3 per cent. it costs £4,769, of which £2,569 is interest. That shows a saving of £2,204, or, in terms of rent, 14s. 1½d. per week. If local authorities and others find that the rents are too dear—as many of them do; there is no argument about that—the Secretary of State has an easy way out, as I shall try to show later, in reducing rents if he wants to do it without seeking to inflate rates, as is happening.
Taking the high notional value which the right hon. Gentleman would put on this type of house as £54—the gross annual value is £48, but I am putting £6 more on the rent of the house than he suggests and if the subsidy were £32, there would still be a deficit of £41 to be met by the local authority. Therefore, the big problem that we have to face today in relation to housing is not the cost of labour or the cost of materials, but the cost of the money which is necessary to build the house.
In the midst of that, the Secretary of State tells us on page 36 of"The Finance of Housing":
The level of Scottish local authority rents has risen only slowly and remains, on average, unreasonably low.
We must realise that this year Glasgow Corporation will collect from the houses it owns £9 million in rents, rates and grants; and from that sum will pay £6 million to the moneylenders. That is the system which the right hon. Gentleman is advocating and is going to employ in order to solve the housing problem. It means putting on local authorities burdens which are almost insupportable.
All over the country—not merely in Glasgow—people are complaining because the housing revenue deficits are being put on the rates. In Glasgow, we are met by the question,"Is it fair to put a housing revenue deficit of £3 million on the rates?". It is sending the rates up by 3s. in the £. However, we are not discussing that today. I want to make it clear that I in no way dissent from the idea of a reasonable rent, but no one in Scotland says a word about the fact that from the same rates we are finding £6 million a year to give to the moneylenders. In fact, 6s. in the £ is placed on the rates to meet the demands of the moneylenders, and yet very little complaint is made about that fact. We must remember that there are two aspects—the amount supplied by the rates to meet the deficit on the housing revenue account, and the vaster amount taken to meet the demands of the moneylenders.
Quoting the right hon. Gentleman, I have said that he is urging local authorities to raise rents, and he has actually brought in legislation to compel them to do so. I ask him to think about this question and try to answer it for himself,"What policy is it that causes this pressure for increased rents?". The right hon. Gentleman is bleeding the tenants at the rent level in order to maintain a high interest rate at the national level. The defence which he will put forward, and which he may put forward today, is that he has got to do that because our country, through its position as the banker of the world, must maintain a high interest level policy in order to attract investments. The result is that we keep high interest rates to attract money from abroad because of what we claim to be out peculiar international position.
That reason is not true. If we take the general interest rate in Britain and compare it with the general interest rates over the last few years in America and Europe, we find that when our rate was an average of 6 per cent., that in Europe and America was 3 per cent., and when our rate was 5 per cent., in Europe and America is was 2½ per cent. We are being disadvantaged in our social policies because we are applying an international rate at the local level, which few other nations do.
When we were faced with the question of this policy and the cost of money a few months ago during the Committee stage of the Air Corporations Bill, we learned as a result of an Amendment which I moved that British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation are getting preferential rates of 4½ per cent. to meet capital commitments at a time when the Secretary of State for Scotland is imposing rates of 6 and 6¼ per cent. on our local authorities.
Last Friday, in the House, we decided to give preferential treatment to owner occupiers by the abolition of Schedule A. This means that the rest of the Income Tax payers will make up whatever deficiency may be created by the loss of the revenue from Schedule A. It also poses to the Secretary of State this question: if he can defend an Income Tax rebate for those who borrow money to pay for their houses, how can he deny a tax reduction to those who pay rent? If he faces up to the social implications of this part of the Government's monetary policy, then he will find a happier way out of some of his difficulties than he seems to have found up to now.
Cheap money should be a major aim in solving the housing problem and easing the financial burden of the local authorities. Let him remember that there is more than rent behind this. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman and I stood at the new tunnel at Linthouse, which was opened by the Queen. Earlier, he had heard the Lord Provost telling us of some of the other problems facing our great corporations today—not only tunnels, but roads, bridges and other needs. All these are serious and costly matters.
When I first raised the issue of the Linthouse Tunnel in the House, in 1951, the cost would have been £2½ million. Yesterday, the Lord Provost said that it will be £11 million. That is the sort of financial language that the local authorities are now being compelled to use, and they cannot go on doing that, and doing it efficiently, with the minimum of help from the Government and the maximum of interest for the money they must employ in doing what the Government say they should be doing.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give serious thought to these issues.


It is far more important that local authorities should be able to bo361"
rrow at lower rates for housing than that financiers should be able to borrow at high rates for speculation. That is what it boils down to. Millions of pounds are being made by the mere use—or, rather, abuse—of money. All this is helping to precipitate an inflationary situation under which individuals and local authorities are likewise suffering.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to see a real and effective attempt made to solve the terrible problem of mal-housing in Scotland, then he must get down to the root problem—the costwhich the need of money imposes on local authorities at the present time. If he tackles that problem earnestly and seriously, he will be doing something more effective for the solution of the housing problem than has so far been done by the Government.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. John Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) took us back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I remember that more than twenty years ago I heard him make that speech for the first time. Time and again he has referred to those times. I do not think any of us are very much interested in what took place then. Members of the Opposition are entitled to concentrate on what has been done by the Government during the years they have been in office and to inquire what future housing policy is to be. The hon. Member finished his peroration by stating that the Conservative and Unionist Party has no policy and asked, very pertinently, what my right hon. Friend is prepared to do about housing in Scotland.
A very good answer can be given. The Government have done a very good job. Since the war, 406,775 houses have been built in Scotland and one person in every three has moved into a new house built since then. It is worth relating that in the years 1952–60, under the Unionists, houses were built in Scotland at an average rate of about 30,000 a year compared with an average of about 19,000 a year under the Socialist Government. The best year under the Socialists was 1949, with 25,840 permanent houses built, but each year under the Unionists has seen that figure exceeded.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned a reduction of houses built in 1962. In that year, fewer houses were completed by public agencies—the local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association—but private building was the highest since 1937. The reason for the reduced public output is a reflection of the difficulties encountered by some of the cities and large burghs in turning from relatively straightforward building to the more complex process of redeveloping central areas.
One can see at a glance that previously building has mainly taken place on the borders of cities or burghs where virgin land was used to a great extent. But when it comes to centre redevelopment there is a great deal of delay and many more expenses are encountered.
I come from Glasgow, a city in which I have been a social worker for a number of years. I am as alive as anyone to the grim conditions in which people have to live in the slums of that great city. The slums undoubtedly affect the health of the community and the conduct of young people and build up enormous difficulties for future family life. Slum clearance is an operation which has to be undertaken in three separate stages.
The first is the provision of new houses for the displaced slum dwellers. In Glasgow, two or three years ago, there was a large prison which was known as Duke Street Prison, near Glasgow Cathedral. The prison was pulled down and the corporation is now building a huge housing scheme on the site. I sometimes think that it would be desirable if sites such as that could be used for the building of some sort of hostel or other temporary accommodation to house people who have lost their homes as the result of slum clearance.
Four or five times during the weekend I pass through a district known as the Gorbals, very well represented by a distinguished hon. Member. Those were horrible slums, but a year ago they were demolished and new houses are being built on the site. I inquired from the Glasgow Housing Department where the people who had lived in those slums had gone, and I was told that they were living all over Glasgow, many of them in


my constituency. If there were a policy of accommodating them in a hostel or something akin to it while the site was cleared, when the new houses were completed they could go back to the areas in which they had lived and brought up their children and where they had their roots and where they wanted to stay.

Mr. James Bennett: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow Corporation is carrying out that policy? I draw his attention to the fact that a Clydeside shipyard is building temporary houses which are placed on sites from which people have been transferred out of old properties which have subsequently been demolished. Glasgow Corporation is to be congratulated on already pursuing the policy which the hon. Member is enunciating.

Mr. Henderson: The Corporation must have heard me making this suggestion at a public meeting in Glasgow about eighteen months ago. Each stage of the redevelopment of small areas is dependent on the successful completion of the preceding stage, and this makes for a complicated and lengthy process.
Secondly, the Government intend to clear nearly all the remaining slums, and this means providing the displaced workers with jobs. The Minister of Housing announced the plan some months ago for broadening the basis of house building, and firms in shipbuilding and other heavy industries are to be asked to build houses which can be transferred to suitable sites and assembled there. There is a great possibility in this process for the future.
In the very heart of Glasgow there used to be a building known as the Lyric Theatre and the Y.M.C.A. On the opposite corner were the Empire Theatre and shops. Both those old established concerns have been taken over by a finance company in the last two or three years. Skyscraper offices will now occupy these very important sites. One building has been completed and the old buildings on the other site are in course of being demolished. Skyscrapers are now to be seen in many parts of Glasgow and they are common in London. There is nothing artistic about them, nothing pleasing to the eye, but

they are put up in a remarkably short time to provide office accommodation.
There is a shortage of building labour in Glasgow, as there is throughout the country, and some of the material and building labour used in this office building ought to be placed at the disposal of the corporation or the building companies for house building. The time has come when firms engaged in office building should have their activities curtailed so that house building can be increased.
I now come to the third stage. Many houses have been improved with the aid of Government grants, but the reconditioning of houses is a major problem. In Glasgow there are many good tenements which are externally sound but like slums internally. In the past few yearsthe Government have provided facilities for substantial grants for the improvement of these tenements which could fulfil a very useful purpose.
In 1901, 48 people per 1,000 population in Scotland were over 65. In 1931, the proportion was 73 per 1,000, and it is estimated that it will be well over 100 per 1,000 in 1974. I disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, for I believe that there must be an increase in houses of one and two apartments for the ever increasing number of old folk. In Scotland20 per cent. of new local authority houses are now of one or two apartments compared with 3 per cent. in the first ten years after the war.
I turn now to the question of rents.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Would the hon. Gentleman live in a two-roomed house?

Mr. Henderson: I was born in one.

Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman live in one now?

Mr. Henderson: Many good people live in two-roomed houses.

Mr. Willis: That is not an answer to the question I asked.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman live in a council house?

Mr. Willis: No.

Mr. Henderson: It is a wonder, because many members of the hon. Gentleman's party do.
The low level of Scottish local authority rents has continued to be one of the main problems of the housing programme, and this has been underlined in the Toothill Report, which is often quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which said:
Low rents have not only failed to bring social justice but have done serious harm to the economy. With sensible rents it would be possible for local authority finances to be on a sound footing, to overcome the housing shortages which remain, to raise the low level of private enterprise building, to surmount the serious obstacles to mobility of labour to secure adequate expenditure on appearance and surroundings and to do all this while making better provision for the genuinely needy.

Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Gentleman should say that at Castlemilk.

Mr. Henderson: I do not mind a reasonable interruption, but I think that is just sheer impertinence.
The Report considered that a higher level of rents throughout Scotland was essential to the health of the economy, and estimated that on average throughout Scotland a rent of 18s. a week would dispense with the need for any contribution from rates, and 15s. a week would require a contribution no greater than one-third of the Exchequer subsidies. As the general wage throughout Scotland is between £14 and £15 a week, I do not think that 14s. a week would be an unreasonable rent to charge.
This Government have faithfully kept their promise made in their manifesto at the last election to get rid of all slums. Their record is a good one. During the past ten years the promise to provide houses for the people of Scotland is being fulfilled, and the Government have now decided to embark on a future scheme to build 35,000 houses each year. They will maintain this figure, and they could well increase it, for Scotland's people have never had it so good.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) started his speech by complaining that he had heard my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) making the same speech several times. I am not able to make the same criticism of the hon. Gentleman, because as far as I can

remember I have never before heard him make a speech.

Mr. J. Henderson: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is just a youngster, and has not been here very long.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman need not be quite so sensitive about it. I was going on to say that although some of the things he said were no doubt interesting, he did not give me the impression that he really comprehends the seriousness of the housing situation in Scotland at the moment.
That is a perfectly legitimate criticism to make also of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I know that it is common form to criticise the Government's contribution in this debate as thoroughly inadequate. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was not only thoroughly inadequate but was extremely depressing, because the Government have not faced the seriousness of Scotland's housing problem and, however one looks at the Scottish housing figures, the fact is that they are appallingly bad and have been getting worse over the last few years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central quoted a number of figures which I was given in a Parliamentary answer from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on Tuesday of this week, and the comparative figures for Scotland which I received on Wednesday of this week. If one makes these international comparisons on a population basis, one sees how badly Scotland is doing. In 1962 the Scottish Housing figure was 5·1 houses completed per thousand of the population. This was lower than the figure for England and Wales, and lower than the figure for France, West Germany, Austria, Italy, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Soviet Union. The figure was lower in only one European country of those given, and that was in Belgium, but according to a report by the European Economic Community's Commission on Housing there is no shortage of housing in Belgium at the moment. The only country with a building record similar to that of Scotland was East Germany. The figure there was also 5·1 houses per 1,000 of the population, so the Secretary of State for Scotland managed to


do at least as well as Herr Ulbricht. But even that did not apply in 1961, and as far as one can gather from the figures for 1963, it will not apply this year.
If we ignore what is happening in the rest of Europe and compare the position in Scotland with that in England and Wales we see that the figures for Scotland are worse than those for the other two countries. This development has come about in the last three or four years, because until 1958 we were building proportionately more houses than were being built in England and Wales. In 1958, for example, our figure was 6·3 as against the English and Welsh figure of 5·4. But since then there has been a steady and quite substantial deterioration in the Scottish position, until in 1962 we were building only 5·1 compared with 6·1 in England and Wales.
It is a truism, and it has been said time and again in this House and elsewhere, that the housing position in Scotland is much worse than it is in England and Wales. I do not believe that even a Scottish Office spokesman would deny that. Yet making the comparison between the position in Scotland and that in England and Wales, we are doing substantially worse than they are, and if one compares the position in England and Wales with what is happening in the other countries of Europe, the position even in England and Wales is also thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not believe that, making any kind of qualification that one can about these figures, taking into account all the different factors about population, increases in population, population movements, the quality of the houses, the size of the houses, the effects of rebuilding everywhere, and so on, one can come to any conclusion other than that which I have mentioned, that the Scottish figures are appalling and that they have been getting worse over the last few years.
If one tries to estimate the amount of housing that we require to meet the present situation in Scotland, one comes to the conclusion that the figures which have been achieved over the last few years are thoroughly inadequate. If one does this calculation on a population basis, and if one takes into account the necessity for slum clearance, one comes to a total figure which is substantially

higher than the figure of about 27,000 houses achieved by the Government last year. We want about 40,000 houses per year as a minimum, but the figure could in fact be considerably higher.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central quoted figures of old houses in Scotland. About 550,000 houses in Scotland were built prior to 1880. All these houses, with the exception of a small minority, ought to be renewed now, and quite a number built after that date also need to be renewed, sometimes because they are slums, and sometimes because they are rapidly deteriorating into slums, but in any event because they are lacking in modern amenities. Yet the slum clearance programme in Scotland has been reduced over the past few years. The figures relating to houses closed as unfit have decreased between 1958 and 1962, as part of the general pattern of deterioration in the Scottish housing position. We have been clearing under 10,000 houses a year.
In what seemed to me to be an inexcusable attempt to mislead us, the Under-Secretary quoted a figure of 13,000 for a 15-months'period. But we are dealing with years. He gave the impression that he was quoting a year's figure within a three years' programme, but he was actually quoting a 15-months'figure. That was extremely misleading. The number has gone down to less than 10,000 a year, although we have 550,000 houses which are more than 83 years old and the vast majority of them require to be demolished. At the minimum, they require to be demolished over the next twenty years if we are to make any substantial improvement in the Scottish housing situation.
We have had a Government White Paper, which rather strangely includes Scotland together with England and Wales in the one document. In that White Paper we have a Government admission that the total number of houses being built in the United Kingdom is inadequate. What else is the Government White Paper but an admission that the numbers are inadequate? It is said that we must increase the number, because of slum clearance, to 350,000 houses a year, but there is no background information in the White Paper as to the way in which this figure was calculated. There is no statistical information—no


estimate of the need for slum clearance in statistical terms. There are no estimates of population movement, which is a tremendously important factor, and one that will become all the more important if we can stop the tremendous drain of population from Scotland by way of migration. There is no attempt to deal with any of these factors, and it is extremely difficult to see how the figure of 350,000 was arrived at, or whether it was calculated on a reasonable basis.
This document was accurately described by one of my hon. Friends on another occasion as being not a Government White Paper but the first part of the Government's election manifesto. Reading through it one gets the impression that there is the same duplicity, evasiveness and dishonesty that we have come to expect from Conservative Party manifestoes. The White Paper contained no information about Scotland, as distinct from England and Wales. The Under-Secretary brought out of the air this afternoon the figure of 35,000—but we built only 27,000 houses last year. If the Government plan to build 35,000 houses in Scotland in years to come one would have thought that this would be a sufficiently important fact to be mentioned in the White Paper, but it is not mentioned. It was brought out in the same dishonest way by the Under-secretary this afternoon—almost as an afterthought, in one of the closing passages of his speech.
If only the Government would admit that by any standards—international standards, by comparison with England and Wales, or by any estimate of what we require in the way of slum clearance in order to abolish overcrowding and the rest—Scotland's housing situation is terribly bad, we might have some confidence that the Government can successfully tackle the problem, but if we are to get this kind of complacent speech—"complacent"is an overworked adjective, but it is an apt one in relation to the speech we had this afternoon—and this kind of Government White Paper, we must give up all hope that the Government even appreciate the problem, much less than having any idea as to how it can be solved.
We must surely all agree that we need a substantial increase in the number of houses completed per year in Scotland.

What kind of houses should they be? We know that according to post-war tradition the vast majority of these houses should be local authority houses. The situation for years to come will be such that we cannot rely solely upon private enterprise. But I do not believe that the situation ought to be posed in terms of a choice between local authority housing on the one hand and private housing on the other. That is completely misreading the situation. There is no need to make this choice. Scotland needs more local authority housing and more private housing because the situation is so bad. We should not be trying to make this artificial choice.
Knowing the slums of Glasgow, and some other slums, if I thought that we could build more private houses in Scotland only at the expense of local authority houses I should be against any increase in the number of private houses, but I believe that the two things can proceed at the same time. The Government should be trying to press ahead on the two fronts at the same time. To say that one is in favour of more private housing is not to criticise the principle of subsidy, which is inherent in local authority housing. A substantial principle of subsidy is also inherent—from the taxation point of view—in owner-occupation at present, because of the relief on mortgage interest. But this is not the main argument in respect of the kind of housing needed.
What about rents? The Government have an obsession about rents, and I believe that some of my hon. Friends also have, although in a rather different way. In my view the subject of rent is a comparatively minor issue. There is no use disputing the fact that many Scottish local authorities have quite unjustifiable rent policies. To some extent there is a grain of truth in the Government assertion, but the idea that if we simply force local authorities to charge higher rents we shall go anywhere near to solving Scotland's housing problem is a ludicrous one. This approach by the Government is not relevant to the needs of the Scottish housing situation. If we agree that we should be building more houses of all kinds—private houses as well as local authority houses—and that the need is absolutely desperate, the next question we must ask is: are we capable


of doing it? What is holding Scotland back at present from obtaining the housing production that it undoubtedly needs, and that every observer agrees it needs?
Part of this is the old problem of economic expansion. Economically, Scotland has a much poorer record than the rest of the country—and that has been poor enough. That fact has an effect upon housing output in Scotland. If the Scottish economy could be made into a prosperous one we would increase the demand for houses and also our capability and incentive to produce more houses in Scotland. We should be able to overcome many of the difficulties relating to new towns, where, again, the Scottish record is quite appalling and does not stand comparison with the record of England and Wales. This general lack of economic prosperity is one of the major factors in the Scottish housing situation, and it is a factor which is all too often overlooked.
But there are other factors. My hon. Friends have mentioned some of them this afternoon. There is the factor of the interest rates, which affects not only local authority housing but building society mortgages, and therefore private housing. The greatest single step that the Government could take to encourage a greater rate of house-building in Scotland would be to do something about the existing high interest rates.
There is also the question of subsidies, and there is the problem of land. This is not a problem in Scotland, or at least it is not a large problem, as in England and Wales. For that reason the Government completely neglect it. Even the Minister of Housing and Local Government is beginning to admit that in England and Wales there is something of a land problem, particularly in the South-East and the Midlands. But I do not recollect that any Minister from the Scottish Office has admitted that a land problem is beginning to develop in Scotland. Already in Glasgow it is extremely difficult, and there are difficulties in a number of other places. But the problem is being completely neglected and, eventually, it will become as serious in Scotland as in some parts of England and Wales. Certainly it is inhibiting central development to a considerable extent.
Apart from all these factors—interest rates, subsidies and the rest—it is also true that there there is a widely spread wrong attitude—that is the best way in which I can describe it—to housing in Scotland. We compare badly in this respect even with England and Wales. In Scotland there are far too many people who do not have a sufficient desire for Scottish housing improvements, and insufficient pressure is applied to the Government to persuade them to get rid of this quite appalling social problem.
We see it manifested in all sorts of different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central referred this afternoon to the preponderance of three-apartment houses in Scotland and to the single apartment and two-apartment houses. One rather pathetic and depressing feature of the Scottish housing situation is that so many people prefer small houses. They asked that local authorities shall build small houses rather than larger houses. This seems to me to be something in the Scottish attitude towards housing which, unfortunately, does not help us to solve the Scottish housing problem. We find the same sort of attitude regarding the improvement of old type property. Here again the Scottish figures are much worse than for England and Wales. I am not exculpating the Government in any way, nor am I exculpating private builders.
Also in Scotland there is insufficient feeling of anger and frustration about the housing situation. The problem is so dreadful. One sees the slums which exist in some parts of Glasgow and in other parts of Scotland and the bad housing conditions and one becomes extremely angry, not only with the Government and with everyone else responsible, but also angry because we do not make a sufficient row about the Scottish housing situation. I do not believe there is anything to prevent us from solving Scotland's housing problems or that there is such a strain on the Scottish building industry, that it must be a drag on improving the Scottish housing figures.
The Under-Secretary of State again this afternoon—one gets tired of Government spokesmen doing it—talked about the number employed in the building industry as if somehow that number was static and could not be increased. But the number of people employed in the


building industry has been going up since 1959, according to the figures which I looked at this afternoon, and I have no doubt that the same pattern would be apparent regarding figures for earlier years. About 20,000 more people were being employed in the construction industry in Scotland at the end of 1962 compared with the number employed at the end of 1959. There is no reason why that figure should not increase substantially in the years to come. If the demand is there and the building industry is getting the orders and is sufficiently efficient to do the job quickly, the numbers employed in the industry will go up. That is common sense.
Some industries are increasing their labour force all the time while others reduce their labour force. That is part of the ordinary process of industrial life. Yet Government spokesmen talk about imposing an undue strain on the building industry. There are 94,000 people unemployed in Scotland, and there is no strain on the industry which could not be relieved if the Government treated the problem with a little more urgency.
Certainly there are shortages in some of the skilled trades. There is a shortage of architects, draughtsmen, technicians and the rest. We are now paying the penalty, in this as in other spheres of economic activity, for the neglect by the Government of scientific and technical education. But this is not something which we need to accept as a fact of life. The Government have it in their power to see that the numbers are increased if that is necessary, as I think it is. The Government have lately presented us with the idea of industrialised building, and it is an idea which I support. I hope that it will provide additional work for the shipyards, because, unfortunately, the shipbuilding industry has been very much in decline over the last few years.
This is only one channel of approach. If the building industry is inefficient and cannot cope with the demands made upon it; if there are too many small firms, or firms which do not possess the technical equipment necessary, or if there are too many restrictive practices indulged in, the Government might tell us about them and what are the problems. Let the Government say how the problems are to be tackled. If the Government told us that this kind of aproach

would be adopted it seems to me that results would follow.
When last did the Secretary of State for Scotland discuss the Scottish housing position with the Scottish building industry, never mind local authorities, building societies, private owners and the rest? When did we go over the problems of the Scottish building industry with the people who are actually building houses? There is no sign of the Government ever having done that. In every aspect of Scottish housing policy the record of the Government over the last two years has been one of miserable failure. It is not a question of statistics. There is a tremendous human problem involved which makes it all the more tragic that we have had such experiences over the last few years.
On other occasions the Secretary of State has come to us and said that if we have an unattractive Scotland, with bad housing and bad town planning and with drab environments, and the rest of it, we shall not be able to attract industries to Scotland. There is a certain amount of substance in that argument. But while the Secretary of State is saying that, the number of houses being built in Scotland is steadily going down. It has gone down by more than 10,000 between 1953 and 1962. This is a vicious circle. If we have bad housing it makes it difficult to attract new industry. If there is no new industry we cannot have economic prosperity which in turn is necessary for new housing. But in respect of housing the Government have the power to break through the vicious circle. It is not something regarding which they must depend exclusively on private enterprise.
One knows that the problems in Scotland are extremely difficult. It is not only the responsibility of the Government. There is a responsibility upon local authorities and upon us all. We have been too complacent for too long about the housing situation in Scotland. But the main responsibility rests on the Government and one does not gain the impression from previous speeches which have been made, from the content of the White Paper and the report on Scottish development, and particularly from the speech made today by the Under-secretary of State, that the Government have a proper conception of what are


the problems and how serious is the position.
It is not a question of the Government failing to provide the right answers. I do not believe that the Government have even asked the right questions about Scotland's housing position. I have absolutely no confidence that while the present Secretary of State and his colleagues are dealing with the situation we shall ever come anywhere near to getting a solution to Scotland's appalling difficulties in respect of housing.

6.20 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley(North Angus and Mearns): A story is told of the late Mr. H. G. Wells, who was in America, following a speaker who had dilated at great length about the place in which he was speaking. It was Hollywood. H. G. Wells was called upon to make a speech. He rose in his place and said,"Hollywood leaves me speechless". If the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) does not leave me actually speechless, it has left me very breathless, because he traversed so rapidly so many points that one is almost at a loss to know where to begin to pick up points in a debate such as this.
I take two points made by the hon. member. First, if I understood him rightly—this was strangely reminiscent of an attitude shown by members of his party in this House that"the gentleman in Whitehall knows best"—he almost deplored the fact that a number of people in Scotland actually dared to ask local authorities for small houses. The truth is that old people prefer small houses. They are easier to work. If they did not have small houses they would have to go to an eventide home or some such place. Today in Scotland 100 of every 1,000 persons are over 65 years of age. By 1974 there will be about 120 of every 1,000 over 65 years of age. It surely is a very good thing that local authorities in Scotland have recognised this fact and are providing for it.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I appreciate the point the hon. Member is making, but is not his contention completely wrong when we examine the statistics and find that a large proportion of local authority houses in every area

in Scotland are overcrowded? Some of them are grossly overcrowded.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not think that detracts from the need to build some proportion of small houses for old people. I welcome the fact that it is being done with the encouragement of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman think it justifies the proportion in the latest figures, which show that this year 25 per cent. are one- or two-apartment houses?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I merely make the point that in recent years there has been very little provision for old people in response to the demand for two-apartment houses for them. Naturally when attention is called to that, it is right that local authorities should make a drive to increase the number of small houses for old people and I welcome the fact that they are doing so.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but on this point I was not talking about special provision of housing for old people, which is an entirely different question. If one compares the number of three-apartment houses for the whole of Scotland with what local authorities do in England and Wales one sees that on the whole our houses are very much smaller. This is part of the Scottish tradition, a tradition which I deplore. In England they think it quite natural to have a spare room, but in Scotland if people have a spare room they think they should be moving to a smaller house, I was merely stating a fact.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member has made the point and I accept it.
I take another point he made in his speech. He spoke about the steady deterioration in the scale of Scottish house building vis-à-visthat of England since 1958. While no one on this side of the Committee can be complacent about the Scottish housing position, I think we ought to recognise certain basic facts. One is that since 1958 there has been most extraordinary pressure on the whole of the south-east of England and on the west Midlands for more houses. There has been most unprecedented and unexpected industrial development there.


No doubt we shall be debating this question in the House on Monday of next week. It is a feature which hon. Members recognise, but it is one which is bound to reflect itself in statistics such as these.

Mr. Millan: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: No. The hon. Member made, I shall not say a long speech, but a full speech. It would not be fair to others for me to keep giving way to the same hon. Member.
The second factor which has given rise to that disparity in the rate of building north of the Border compared with south of the Border is that in England the bulk of the building is done by private enterprise. We should like to see a great deal mare of it done by private enterprise in Scotland.

Mr. Cyril Bence: It is done by private enterprise in Scotland.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I mean that in England it is done in another way. In England the bulk of building is done by private enterprise speculators who have not got purchasers for their houses when they buy the land. They buy the land and run up houses, some good and some not so good, and then sell them to people who, usually, are very ready to buy them. In Scotland most of the building is done by local authorities, by the Scottish Special Housing Association and so on for public authorities, and very little speculative building of that kind takes place.
The main reason for that is low rents for local authority houses in Scotland. I agree with the quotation made from the Toothill Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. I. Henderson) that low rents have not only failed to bring social justice, but have done serious harm to our economy. I welcomed the speech made by the Under-Secretary in which he referred to low local authority rents, which are not only undermining local authority finances but are inflicting grave injustice on taxpayers.
I turn to another speech, that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the point he made about the price of money. This point was also

referred to by the hon. Member for Craigton. I may be doing him an injustice, but he appeared to be supporting the plea made by the hon. Member for Govan. I hope I am not being unfair to the hon. Member for Govan in paraphrasing what he said in this way: local authorities are having to pay so much for the use of money that the prices of houses are enormously inflated. That, I think, was the burden of his speech. Therefore, he suggested, we have to tackle the problem of interest on borrowed money. That, superficially, is an attractive idea.
Clearly, if we could do anything to reduce the price of local authority building it would be worth going a long way to do it. But let us examine this, because in so far as it has been advanced as a serious argument twice this afternoon and on many occasions outside, we must recognise that if local authorities were able to borrow at artificially low rates for housing, then other demands would inevitably follow. I ask hon. Members to think of that. I can imagine that in the kind of debate which we had in Scottish Grand Committee this morning about Scottish education there would be demands for education authorities to borrow money at low rates.

Mr. Willis: Why not?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I am making the point that other demands would follow. They would be made in respect of hospital building, roads and allother public purposes.

Mr. Willis: Why not?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I will tell the hon. Member why not. I do not advance these points without giving an answer, and if he will wait I will tell him why, in my view, it would be wrong to do this. Changes in interest rates through the operation of the Bank Rate are one of the means by which the Government, or any Government in this country, keep our economy in balance and thereby help to combat inflation and to preserve employment.

Mr. Willis: They have not been very successful in Scotland.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Moreover, interest rates come down as well as go up. Local authorities are responsible for about one-fifth of the nation's capital


expenditure so that to exclude local authorities from any changes in interest rates would make nonsense of our monetary policy. I do not believe that any country organised as we are, with the balance which we have between local authority expenditure and other public expenditure, could possibly accept that as a feasible policy. Moreover, to allow local authorities to operate at an artificially low rate of interest would mean a concealed subsidy, which would be payable by the taxpayers.
I want to pass to a point which was made in an interruption by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) during the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Many of us had the privilege of going yesterday to Bathgate to see the remarkable development which has been undertaken by B.M.C. and later to Linwood to see the Rootes' production of the new Imp car. As always, on these occasions, there was a session during which we were able to ask questions, and I put a question to the deputy managing director of B.M.C. about the provision of houses. I asked whether he had found that the Development Department and local authorities were helpful in the provision of houses and whether there had been any impediment in the firm's ability to expand and to employ the people they wanted to employ because of a failure to provide houses. The answer gave rise to considerable discussion, and I think that at the earliest possible opportunity the matter ought to be ventilated in the House so that an answer can be given or, if that is not possible, so that the matter may be investigated.
The background is the remarkable fact that this enormous factory, with a land area of 260 or 270 acres, started to be built on a swamp only three years ago. Anyone who goes there now will be astonished at the progress which has been made and immensely impressed by everything which has been done. I have not had an opportunity to check these particulars, but I think that they have had 650 houses for key workers and others provided in one way or another. I shall go into that in a moment. But they have an immediate need of an additional 240 houses, and it was upon that point that the hon. Member for West Lothian, who is the representative

of that area in the House, said that although there was a need for 240 houses, they had been promised only 10 in the current year. We were told that the West Lothian County Council was very helpful and that the Bathgate Town Council was perhaps rather less helpful, but that there was no reluctance to help on the part of the local authorities. But, in the words of the deputy managing director,"Something seems to have gone wrong."
I see from the Scottish Development Department Report for 1962 that
West Lothian County Council undertook to provide 300 houses for Glasgow families in addition to building about 200 houses for workers recruited by the company from places other than Glasgow; and Whitburn Town Council, assisted by the Scottish Special Housing Association, undertook to accommodate 500 workers from Glasgow.
That makes 1,000 houses. The Report says,
By the end of the year 194 families had been housed in these two centres and 354 houses were under construction.
I am not saying that local authorities have not done well. I dare say that according to their lights they have done as well as they can. We were pleased later when we went to Linwood to find that there was not the same complaint; although they had not all the houses they wanted they were not as unhappy about the position as are the B.M.C. people.

Mr. Willis: Who is to blame?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I wish the hon. Member would get out of the habit of making sedentary interjections and then I should be able to continue with my speech. He always anticipates what I am about to say, and I shall now say what he anticipated.
I do not know the extent to which the subsidies of £42 a year for 60 years in respect of an overspill house and £30 or £32 in respect of a house for incoming industrial workers makes it a paying proposition for local authorities. It may be that local authorities do not break even, at the rents which they are charging in supplying houses at that rate of subsidy for industrial workers. But what ought to be done—and it may well be that it is done, although I make it as a suggestion—is that when a great concern like B.M.C. goes to Bathgate, the Scottish Development Department


or my right hon. Friend should convene a conference of all those responsible for housing, possibly with the Under-Secretary of State, representing the Scottish Development Department, in the Chair, to ascertain exactly what is the need for houses and then to ascertain from each of the local authorities concerned what they can do, with the help of the existing subsidies, to meet that need.
For example, in this case West Lothian County Council might say that it would provide so many houses, Whit burn would provide so many and Bathgate would provide so many, and probably there would be a deficiency which could not be met by local authorities in the ordinary course of their housing construction, bearing in mind that they have other responsibilities as well as providing for a particular factory, however large that factory may be. There then comes a point at which the Scottish Special Housing Association should be brought in, as it was always intended to be and I suppose still is intended to be, primarily as a kind of commando force which undertakes a crash building programme. I should have thought that the Scottish Special Housing Association might come along and do the development which is required urgently if we are to do the right thing by these people on whose industries we set so much store in Scotland.
I may seem to be contradicting what I said earlier about especially low rates of interest, but there may be a case here, as the Government have a responsibility for providing the infrastructure for big industrial developments of this kind—roads, houses, public services, drainage, and so on—for the Treasury to grant an interest-free loan to the Scottish Special Housing Association so as to enable it to carry out this crash programme of development in places such as Bathgate and Linwood to help incoming industry. I would make it a condition that, leaving outside the interest charges, the other houses should be let at economic rents to the industrialists concerned who could make what arrangements they cared to with their workpeople. The Scottish Special Housing Association, having erected the houses, would let them at an economic rent.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman has suggested, in my view rightly, that in a crash programme it would be a good idea for nominal rates of interest to be charged. Would he agree to a crash programme on slum clearance on the same basis?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I would not want to give a snap answer to that question. There is an enormous priority in Scotland now for getting the kind of industrial development which is represented by the B.M.C. at Bathgate and by Pressed Steel and Rootes at Linwood. It is so essential that we should have these points of growth that we should go a long way to make special arrangements in such cases. I do not know whether it should be extended later.

Mr. Dempsey: When speaking of building houses for industrial workers at economic rents the hon. Gentleman used the words"leaving outside interest charges". What does he mean by that phrase in the context of building houses for industrial workers at economic rents?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: I think I can explain that. One of the items in the cost of housing development is interest on capital. If the Treasury were to advance the necessary capital to the Scottish Special Housing Association, or to whatever agency is chosen to carry out this crash programme for incoming industrialists, I think that the Treasury should do so without interest. Therefore, an interest charge would not form a feature of the economic cost of the house. Apart from that, the costs of materials and labour and construction costs would be added together and the firm concerned would be asked to pay an economic rent, leaving it to make whatever arrangement it wanted to with its employees who would occupy the houses as tenants.

Mr. Ross: What is an economic rent?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: It is rent representing a fair income on the capital expended on the building of the house. It may well be that this sort of thing is being done at present, but I put it forward for consideration in the hope that it will be examined closely.
I have spoken about a crash programme. When anyone talking about houses talks about a crash programme,


others inevitably begin to shudder and think,"My goodness, houses like boxes run up at any price, with speed the all-important thing and with no attention to design". In our last debate there was some criticism of the Report of the Scottish Development Department. I thought that that criticism was unjustified. That Report has much to do with housing and it therefore will not be out of order for me to say that it is a good Report—I hope I do not sound presumptious. I do not think it fair that the only mention of the Report should be the criticisms which were made last time. I have derived a great deal of pleasure from studying it and also a great deal of value. I like the way it is set out. It is factual and helpful.
I am disappointed that nowhere in the Report is there any mention that I can find about the importance of design of houses. Yet we are being asked in Scotland, even with the comparatively few houses we are erecting, to spoil Scotland with houses of bad or indifferent design. Good housing estates are few and far between. It is a great joy to see an estate where the houses have been well laid out, with little bits of green in front and with trees planted. Such estates are an attractive sight. This is of immense importance. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that his people are thinking about this. We want more rich men to make awards for good designs to young Scottish architects. This is being done. Let us encourage the young architect. Let us do all we can to get him to produce a house of good design. I would not say that I would rather have a few houses of good design than a mass of houses like boxes without any character. That would not be right, because we must have more houses. It is important that, in addition to having more houses, they should be well designed and attractive to look at.
I think that the Department has done well. I do not think that it is complacent. I am sure that none of us on this side is complacent. I hope that we shall press on to meet the enormous housing needs in Scotland.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have listened to most of the speeches which have been made today

and I am fascinated by the different approaches to housing development in Scotland which have been forthcoming. What intrigues me is that on the question of housing we are immediately involved in housing finance. Hon. Members opposite have argued that it is possible to build houses for certain key workers without interest charges; in other words, that some subsidy from some unknown source should be used to subsidise the industrialists. From time to time we are told in other debates that money must be found to subsidise farmers.
When we discuss financing these services we never hear any reference to means being taken into account before the subsidies can be given. This intrigues me. The Under-Secretary has made it abundantly clear that there is no subsidy for a tenant in Scotland who earns £15 or more a week. He goes further and says,"We accept the fact that everybody in Scotland has an average of £15, and in these circumstances we believe that a subsidy should not operate".
This is a contradiction in terms—a means test for council tenants, but no means test for industrial executives or for farmers. This clearly indicates that the Government are thinking in terms of class. They are motivated by class loyalties, class interests, and class felicitations. In Lanarkshire, particularly in Coatbridge and Airdrie which I represent, the bulk of council tenants do not have £15 a week. A very large proportion do not have £10 a week. It is absurd to talk about imposing certain rentals on a community on the basis of an average wage which statisticians have worked out when the people do not have such an average wage.
If we are to tackle this problem let us do it realistically and responsibly. I listened to the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson). He, like others, seemed to get inveigled into making comparisons between house production under one Government and another, when we know that that will in no way solve the housing crisis in Scotland. If the hon. Member had had some experience of housing administration, he would not have made such a stupid speech.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes)


and I are the only two hon. Members who have so far spoken who served on housing committees during the trying years immediately after the last war. Then we could not get timber for timber flooring. We had to be content with stone floors. Sweden could not export timber to this country because we could not export coal to Sweden. We had to go back to the archaic days of stone floors because of the export problem and the balance of payments problem. We tried, for example, for many years a simple gadget to cement steel window frames to timber window frames, to stop condensation running down the walls of houses, but we could not get any timber because of the export-import balance of payments problem. We were compelled to have steel window frames, which are bad condensers and cause continual deterioration in the standard of a house. I mention those two points to illustrate that it is nonsensical to try to make a comparison between the immediate post-war years and the 'fifties because there is no relative basis for such a comparison.

Mr. J. Bennett: I would draw attention to the fact that we still have stone floors, not because of the lack of timber but to keep out the many varieties of vermin that exist in some of the cesspits that are called housing areas.

Mr. Dempsey: My hon. Friend reinforces some of the views which I have expressed and mentions some of the experiences to which I want to refer subsequently.
The situation in Scotland is well known to us all. What surprises me is that in this debate we have had no illustration of the conditions under which decent people in Scotland are expected to live in a dignified fashion. I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he was"woe-woeing" the fact that the public are no longer interested in local elections. He said that we could not get them to attend meetings. They did not come along to the polling stations to record their choice of candidate. The amount of apathy is indescribable. If he will come to Coatbridge I can give him the guarantee that I will pack the largest hall in Coatbridge on the subject of housing. The housing conditions there are beyond imagination in a town which is almost a suburb of Glasgow City.
A week last Sunday some of us met a packed audience of tenants complaining about the deplorable conditions under which they live; the almost indescribable conditions under which men, women and children do not live but only exist at the present time. There is no question of amenities. There are no facilities such as hot water. Baths do not exist in this part of the country. Indeed, in many cases they do not have the simple facility of toilets. They are using public toilets which are locked at 10 p.m., and what happens between then and 10 the next morning is nobody's business.

Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is interested in the people who are living in slum houses, but is he also interested in the fact that the City of Glasgow is paying £3½ million insubsidies? There are in my constituency the same living conditions that he is talking about, and the council pays subsidies for corporation houses. Do they do the same in Coatbridge?

Mr. Dempsey: I am dealing with housing conditions, and I shall deal with the question of subsidies in due course. I think that the hon. Gentleman should first of all to get the ordinary decencies of life into our houses before he starts to wail about any financial imposition.
I was interested when the hon. Member opposite talked about how many slums have been demolished, but who built the slums?—the landlords. And who represented them?—the party opposite. They were the most undignified hovels that human beings could be expected to live in. We have these slums. Only recently I was compelled to make an arrangement whereby the males who lived in a property had to walk a quarter of a mile to use the public convenience, so that expectant mothers were able to use the toilets in a public building. That is the state of affairs that exists in Scotland today, and with which we should be dealing; not this"waffle-waffle" and supercilious attitude adopted by hon. Members opposite towards this vexed problem of housing.
In answer to a Question which I tabled the Minister said that there were 71,784 single apartments—we call them in Scotland"single ends"—occupied by


families of between two and ten people. This is a statement of fact on housing conditions in Scotland. He said that there were 361,433 two-apartment houses in Scotland, occupied by families, many of which had no facilities. Later he added that there were 416,167 houses where all the families shared toilet facilities. Here we have the real tragedy of Scottish housing revealed in stark-naked terms. What do the Government propose to do about this situation? What are their intentions? When we look at their record of achievement it is surprising. I am concerned with the fact that the local authorities build houses for those who need them most in the community, and allocate them on the basis of regulations laid down for that purpose. The local authority rate of house completion over the past few years speaks for itself. According to the housing summary issued by the Secretary of State it reveals, for example, that in 1957 we were completing 24,239 houses a year. But by 1962 that number had gone down to 16,245. Last year we were completing two-thirds of the number being built in 1957. Instead of this we should have been increasing the number of houses built because of the desperate needs of Scotland.
I am concerned at the lack of sincerity on the part of the Government to get ahead with the housing drive. This concern is bound to arise when this sort of thing happens in Coatbridge. The local authority decided to acquire a site called Blairhill. While the council was in the process of acquiring it certain objections were lodged. The local authority held a public inquiry at a cost to public funds, which lasted for three days and the Secretary of State sent his own commissioner to the town to preside over it. In due course the commissioner recommended that the land should be given to the town council for municipal housing purposes.
The Secretary of State—and I am referring to the present right hon. Gentleman'spredecessor—rejected the quasi-judicial findings of his commissioner and handed over the land to private enterprise for speculative house building. The only reason for the right hon. Gentleman deciding to do that must have been the strong connections between the firm in question and the Scottish

Tory Party, for the managing director of the firm is a leading light in that party. This example clearly shows how loyalties are devoted to the Tory Party and not to the people of Coat bridge, who are badly in need of houses. Examples like this have been given time and again in the House."Party before nation" is the attitude of hon. Members opposite, and it is to be regretted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) referred to vermin control. Scarcely a month goes by in which I do not receive at my public advice bureau in my constituency a jam jar containing snails cockroaches or other insects which have been breeding in someone's home. This is added reason why the Government should take courage and get down to the task of treating house building as a military operation.
We have listened to all sorts of arguments, excuses and attempts by hon. Members opposite to justify Government policy on housing, but at the root of the matter lies the high rate of interest, for which the Government must be held responsible. Until they slash interest rates the difficulties confronting local authorities will continue to increase. Cheap money should be made available, because this is the only way to rid Britain of the evils of bad and inadequate housing.
What beats me is why, since the banks pay such a low rate of interest, equally low rates should not be charged to those borrowing money for municipal house building. The trouble is that the will is not there and the Government have forgotten the motto,"Where there's a will there's a way". I hope that the Secretary of State will increase the Scottish house building drive and will accompany that increase with an aptitude for flexibility. He should bear in mind particularly the housing schemes and estates of the poorer local authorities.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have more flexibility, because it is relatively easy, when going through almost any area, to point to council estates as distinct from private developments. I have travelled the length and breadth of Lanarkshire, Glasgow and elsewhere and I have been able to see at a glance which are council houses and which are not.
The hallmark of the Scottish Development Department is there. Why cannot we have more flexibility in the design of council houses?
If I were an architect the very last organisation I would join would be the local authority service. Due to financial restrictions and Government interference the style, inclination and interest of the young architect is muzzled from its infancy in the architect's department of a local atuhority. I urge the Secretary of State to allow local authorities to make it possible for enterprising architects to use imaginative designs. Need we always have brick and cement frontages? Why cannot we have stone frontages with long, terraced blocks interspersed with nice three-or four-apartment cottage type houses?
I have listened to the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite about the money spent in subsidising council tenants. Are they not aware that the owner-occupied bungalows and other residences are subsidised by council tenants? Unfortunately council tenants have no voice of their own. I am not demanding that they should have. I am merely pointing out that they cannot frequently say,"We are also contributing in rates". I could give examples of owner-occupiers with three or four children at school and municipal tenants with no children. In such cases the municipal tenants are paying the education rate for the area. People who live in municipal houses must pay the necessary rates to cover the fire brigade, police force and other services which serve both owner-occupier and council tenant alike.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: The hon. Member has spoken of his travels through Lanarkshire, Glasgow and elsewhere. Has he ever gone further afield, into the Highlands, and seen the council houses that have been built there; houses which offer almost everything he desires to see in corporation houses in his area? If he travels further afield he will see attractive, individual, grey-slated houses which more than match up to the description of the buildings he wants to see.

Mr. Dempsey: If that is so it proves that Tory hon. Members and their areas are getting preferential treatment. The

hon. Gentleman's remarks certainly do not apply in the west of Scotland. If he comes to the premier county of Lanarkshire I will show him the sort of houses I have been discussing.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend must admit that Midlothian is the premier county.

Mr. Dempsey: I am always guided by that great Scottish patriot William Wallace, who came from Lanarkshire—the premier county. I understand that Lanarkshire, as an authority, is second only in size to Glasgow. Because of its agricultural and industrial combination it would seem convenient to describe it as the premier county. However, in doing so I do not wish to be offensive to any other county in Scotland. Whatever may be said on this score, why should the Government not do something for all Scottish local authorities? It is difficult for anyone to speak at a public meeting at Coatbridge or Airdrie and try to justify the low measure of house building. This is especially so when we have a first-class house prefabricating factory standing partly idle in the area. In what is one of the most consistently high unemployment areas in Scotland we have a factory that is not being used to its full capacity.
The time has come for the Secretary of State to come down from national level to local level. Why does he not meet these local authorities on a country basis? Why does he not spend a day during the Summer Recess in Lanarkshire, meeting members of the county and town councils? They would show him an up-to-date factory that could manufacture houses, if only he would give the word. That can be done if he is willing to bend his energies to utilise all the services available to double and treble the output of houses.
I have been reading the Conservative Party's policy statement—

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is a glutton for punishment.

Mr. Dempsey: I am a very tolerant democrat—and in Lanarkshire a democrat is usually described as a person who is fair but biased.
I looked at the Tory Party policy, because we all know that there is an election impending. I cannot understand


why the Tories cannot build these houses when they are in power. Why should they wait until there has been a General Election? If there was the will, we could build many more houses than are now being built, but the will is not in the present Government.
There are nearly 10,000 unemployed people in Lanarkshire, and, excluding the winter, we had several hundred building craftsmen registering at the labour exchanges. If hon. Members doubt that statement, let them refer to the reply given by the Minister of Labour to a Parliamentary Question I put to him. The labour is there, and there are factories equipped to produce two or three times the number of houses at present being built. It is a paradox, if ever there was one—the labour and the equipment are there, yet people have to live in such intolerable housing conditions. The means are there, but they are not being used to provide the houses so badly needed.
It is time the Secretary of State spoke to the Government. He should roll up his sleeves at the next Cabinet meeting, and tell his colleagues quite frankly,"Scotland must have a proper share of the kitty. We must build houses there, and attract jobs there, and ensure that this bogy of bad housing is laid once and for all." That can be done only by a dynamic approach to the problem. That is why, as a broad-minded democrat, I hope that it will be done after the next election, when we have a Labour Government.

7.13 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) would be deluding his constituents if he let them think that it would be easy to build at two or three times the present rate. That is not so. For the last two or three years we have been fluctuating between 26,000 and 28,000 houses a year—

Mr. Willis: Far too few.

Sir J. Gilmour: That may be true, but when the Scottish Grand Committee recently debated education we were told that although new schools were wanted there was a shortage of the people needed to build them.
The White Paper set a national target of 350,000 houses, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary today mentioned 35,000 houses for Scotland. That is a good practical increase on the present building rate, but we would delude ourselves if we thought that we could suddenly jump to something better. On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that over a period of years we should be satisfied that that is the best we can attain. When, in the past, we have considered all the clearance of old property that is necessary, the increase in the number of families, longer life, and so on, the tendency has always been to underestimate the difficulties we face. For instance, we thought that the school bulge would pass, but as circumstances have changed we have found that the numbers have tended to grow.
The figure mentioned as the immediate target may be possible and practicable, but it will not be easy of attainment. Only two weeks ago, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was talking about retraining people for the building industry, an hon. Member opposite said that it had not yet been possible to reach agreement with the trade unions to enable extra labour to come into building.
I recently made inquiries in my own county of Fife to discover in regard to the school building programme what the unemployment figures were. I was told that 813 workers in the construction industry were then unemployed, but that only 62, including 12 electricians, were skilled, and that there were 21 skilled vacancies outstanding. That meant that in Fife there was a net pool of only about 40 skilled people. At the same time, we have an enormous power station to build, with all the ancillary works.
I therefore repeat that we would be deluding both ourselves and our constituents if we thought that we could suddenly jump from the present 27,000 to 30,000 houses to about 35,000 houses. Nevertheless, we should not be prepared to rest at 35,000, because from what several hon. Members have said today there is an obvious need for the target to be increased to between 40,000 and 42,000. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend is going into the commitments outlined in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the White Paper he will, while realising that we cannot overload the


building machine, make certain that because of Scotland's particular needs our share of the 350,000 houses should not be a static but an increasing one. That is particularly so because of our need to stop the drift to the South that we have experienced in the past. The congestion down here reinforces the argument that, from a national point of view, the money would be better spent on better distribution of population than on piling people practically on top of each other in one place.
Some hon. Members tend to underestimate the life of a house. I have heard people say that once a house is 60 year, old it is finished and done with. I must here declare an interest because, as the owner of houses, I have drawn grants from the Fife County Council to improve a number of houses. I still have one or two more to improve, for which I hope to draw the appropriate grant—[An Hon. Member:"No means test."] No, but if I had not done that work, an enormous extra burden would have been thrown on the Exchequer. I have paid at least two-thirds of the cost out of my own resources, and have thereby saved the taxpayers a great deal of money that they would otherwise have had to find.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie will find in paragraphs 55and 56 of the White Paper very adventurous provisions for so improving existing houses as to prolong their life for the next ten or fifteen years while other houses are being built. I welcome those provisions, and hope that good use will be made of them, but it will need whole-hearted co-operation amongst private individuals and local authorities.
The other thing which I think my right hon. Friend will probably have difficulty in achieving and which will require a special effort is the provision outlined in paragraph 35 for housing societies and for getting houses built for technicians and people like those in my constituency where new staff is required at the St. Andrews University. This is a new venture for Scotland which will require a special measure of publicity and drive if it is to achieve success.
The Committee has touched on many aspects of the housing problem, but basically it is one of marshalling our resources and allocating the right priorities to them. It is easy to argue that there are too many

office buildings, but if we do not have a thriving economy we cannot have the money with which to build the houses. Basically it is houses that make the type and character of the people who do the jobs. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend allocates money to different things we have the right to ask that housing should have one of the highest priorities.
It is easy to be carried away and to say what can be done and has been done by way of building factories, but basically it is homes that build the character of the people. I ask my right hon. Friend in the months that lie ahead to ensure that in the implementation of a housing policy, which has in it a great deal of what is needed to be done, housing really will take first place in these priorities.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. James Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few comments in the debate, though I confess that the longer the debate goes on the more difficult it becomes to add anything new, other than to touch on experience in one's own area. It is recognised by all hon. Members that Scottish Members approach this problem with a sense of great frustration. This applies to Scottish Members in general and to Glasgow Members in particular.
I have listened to my hon. Friends building up a strong indictment against the efforts of the Government in the past to meet the slum problem. I know full well that hon. Member opposite have built an equally imposing case and have thought out equally imposing figures to indicate how well they have tackled the job. I represent an industrial area, and I say without any boast or pride that it has some of the worst housing conditions in Glasgow. Statistics do not mean a damn in the face of the problem which exists in that area, and the statistics which we have been given as this evening has progressed are cold comfort to those who are living in overcrowded conditions or are homeless.
We must recognise that slums are not a diminishing but a growing problem in Glasgow. Houses which were habitable a year ago are now slums. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) gave figures indicating the present position. I have been reading a speech which I made in November, 1961. It is a quite edifying


experience to read one's own speeches. Either the HANSARD reporters should have the credit for doing a good job on that occasion or I was much better than I thought I was.
The striking feature of that speech was that I quoted certain figures, yet in March of this year, according to figures obtained from the City Factor's Department in Glasgow, there is now hardly any difference in approach from what it was in 1961. This would almost indicate that nothing happened between 1961 and 1963. In fact, 5,000 houses were either closed or demolished during that period. Yet the figures for houses in a slum condition in 1961 still apply in 1963. We are, therefore, not even keeping pace with the slum problem in the programme outlined in the White Paper. The rate of decay far outpaces the present rate of building.
On Tuesday of this week we debated in the Scottish Grand Committee the 1962 Report on Health and Welfare Services in Scotland. There is one small paragraph in that report which attracted no comment. It was never mentioned or questioned. I have tremendous admiration for the skill of whoever wrote that paragraph. Headed"Dysentery", it reads:
No outstanding success can be recorded in the attempts to control this most prevalent of acute infections. If anything, the situation…has become slightly worse.
"No outstanding success" is a beautiful play on words. It means, of course,"utter failure must be recorded".
This failure arises from the atrocious conditions in certain areas of Glasgow. The fact that there has not been an even greater incidence of dysentery is not due to any effort on the part of the Government to keep it down. It is due to the tremendous attempts made by local authorities to provide such amenities as they can.
I well remember a debate on the Scottish housing Act which laid down certain conditions under which houses must be classified as unfit and action taken. If one were cynical enough one would smile at that provision in the Act. I can say quite sincerely that not merely one of these conditions but all of them exist in all of the houses in my area.
The White Paper states that no restriction is being placed on the number of houses which local authorities can build each year for families in unfit houses. Of course, the Government are not placing any restrictions, but the medical services of the local authorities simply cannot and will not close houses which are unfit for human habitation, because there is no other accommodation available. We therefore passively acquiesce in the continuation of a slum because of some failure somewhere to provide other accommodation to which people can be moved away from such conditions.
The longer we tolerate these conditions the longer will the remarks which I made in 1961 continue to apply. I said then that conditions which existed not merely in Glasgow but in the other major cities of Scotland were a standing reproach to ourselves and an affront to decency. The only addition I would make to that remark today is that the reproach and the affront are even greater today.
Even if we can prove to ourselves statistically that much has been done, if we can only face the fact that the slums are worse and can find some method by which land can be made more easily available to local authorities on which they can build, then possibly some day we shall make some real progress in clearing slumdom. But I see nothing in the White Paper or in legislation up to date which will lessen the slum problem. It is a simple matter to condemn the Government for their lack of action, but it is no satisfaction to do that if at the end of the day we cannot make some contribution which will result in an improvement.
We must look at the problem with a greater sense of reality. I confess that many debates in this place, even the one today, seem to take place in an atmosphere of unreality. One has the impression that they have become an academic exercise. One feels that the theme running through them is,"Anything you can do, I can do better". Let us never forget that, at the end of it all, there are a great many of our people living in conditions which are completely subnormal. They live there because we allow them to do so. They live there because we have neither the wit nor the enthusiasm to do anything about it.
We are prepared to pay lip-service to ideas for great improvements, and, God knows, we have been doing it for many years, but, just so long as we continue to pay lip-service only, we accept the squalor and the atrocious conditions in which people have to live. This is our responsibility, and the sooner we face it as a House of Commons and as a Government, the greater will be the chance of survival for the people about whom we are supposed to be concerned.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. J. Bennett) will believe me when I tell him that his words will again read splendidly in HANSARD. I congratulate him on his speech. I venture to make only one comment, that I hope that he will never be the victim of having his words in the House recorded and broadcast, because one's voice always sounds absolutely terrible when listened to. The words read excellently, but they sound quite ghastly.
During the debate there has been a fair amount of emphasis on the financing of the housing programme, and this is not surprising. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his speech, and it formed almost the culminating subject of the White Paper, paragraphs 73 to 75 of which, if I may paraphrase them, said that we must face the cost of housing and that the householder must be prepared, where he is able to do so, to meet the cost of his house.
It is fair to say that hon. Members opposite have on frequent occasions said that they do not support a policy of low rents. I well remember the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) making a speech to that effect at a public meeting in the west of Scotland. I looked up what I thought was a very good speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) in Committee in 1961 when he used almost exactly similar words. It is not unfair to say, however, that hon. Members opposite have never shown themselves particularly enthusiastic about getting the rents up when we have debated the subject here.

Mr. McInnes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dempsey: It is getting the houses up that matters.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central shakes his head with some vehemence. Perhaps he agrees with the objective of having reasonable rents rather than low rents but he does not like the method of achieving it. This may be so, but he is on record, with others of his hon. Friends, as saying that he does not approve of a low rent policy.
I say bluntly that rents in Scotland are low by two standards. The first standard is this. Taking real values, rents are a long way below what was paid in 1938. In 1938 a resident in a local authority house in Aberdeen was paying 6s. 4d. a week. This is equivalent to 18s. 11d. today. The actual average rent in Aberdeen today is 10s. 11d. In Edinburgh, the average rent in 1938was 6s. 8d. This is equivalent to 19s. 11d. today, allowing for the change in the value of money. The actual average in Edinburgh at present is 14s. 3d.
The second standard by which I judge the low level of rents follows automatically from the first. I refer to the proportion of income paid out in rent. This has dropped sharply from 7·2 per cent. in 1938 to 3·3 per cent. today. There are, I know, disagreements about exactly what average earnings in Scotland are. The figure is difficult to get at. But, even allowing for this, it is safe to conclude that there is about a 50 per cent. difference between the pre-war proportion of income paid in rent and the present one.
In passing, on the subject of what is a fair proportion, it is worth noting that the local authority for the district in which this Palace stands, the Council of the City of Westminster, expects tenants under its council house scheme to pay 14 per cent. of their income in rent. I merely mention that in passing, and I go on to say that if 7 per cent. is a fair proportion one can draw certain conclusions from the present level of earnings in Scotland. Certain figures have been agreed by hon. Members opposite as possibly correct. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Robertson) said that he thought that the figure was about £12. Seven per cent. of £12 would be 16s. 8d. Therefore, even holding the situation as it was previously, there is sound reason for saying that rents ought to rise.
It is, however, no use talking in averages.

Mr. Willis: That is what the hon. Gentleman has been doing.

Mr. Stodart: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient. I know that he tries his best, though without much apparent success.

Mr. Willis: It is very difficult to be patient when the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East may be glad to know that we are perpetually being patient with him.
This is the question we must face. How can one discriminate fairly between tenants who can afford to pay more and those who cannot? I put on record, not for the first time, that I have absolutely no desire to inflict higher rents on those who cannot afford to pay. But I am anxious that those who earn substantially more should pay more rent or have the alternative of moving out into a house which is not subsidised out of public funds.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is a farmer.

Mr. Stodart: I notice the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) moving in on this, but I am certain that I should go far out of order if I were to do more than say that he knows perfectly well that farming subsidies are quite different. They are there, as the hon. Gentleman found out for himself the other day, to keep down the price of food. I well remember the passage of arms that we had in which he admitted that if they disappeared, the cost of food would go up.
We must get this matter into as true a perspective as we can. I do not set much store by the headline stories which now and again appear about council houses being something like a Millionaires' Row, people dying and leaving £260,000 after having lived in a council house all their life. This happens—obviously, if the Daily Express says it happens, it must happen—but it hits the headlines to such an extent that, clearly, it is a most unusual occurrence. Consequently, in trying to find an answer to this problem, we should not overplay that aspect.
On the other hand, it is unfair that a household into which, let us say for the sake of argument, £20 a week plus is coming—and that requires only three or possibly even two earners in the household—should pay the same rent as a household which has an income of only single figures. It is worth while asking ourselves seriously whether it is possible to achieve equity in this field. It seems to me that there is certainly the possibility of having either a rents rebate scheme or a differential rents scheme run by a local authority, but I have two objections to this sort of thing. One is the difficulty of achieving equity.
Perhaps I might quote as an example the rents rebate scheme run by the City of Edinburgh. It is admirable in intention, but I do not think it operates fairly. It adds 5s. a week in respect of every additional wage earner within the household drawing more than £4 a week. That means that one man who may be earning £22 a week pays less rent than a man earning £10 who has a son and a daughter each earning £5 a week, thus bringing into the household £20 a week altogether. Consequently, I do not think it is an equitable scheme.
As to the second thing about these schemes which I do not like, I myself have the strongest objection to disclosing details of my income other than to the Inland Revenue. I absolutely sympathise with anyone who takes exception to filling in details of his personal and private income over the counter at the council chamber. The only people who could operate with real equity a system of rents tied to income would be the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Willis: I am very interested in this argument about having rent rebates or differential rates based on the income of the householder. But the person who is buying a house is also very heavily subsidised through the tax reliefs which he gets on his mortgage. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to apply the same principle to those people, who are, by and large, rather better off than council house tenants?

Mr. Stodart: It is difficult to try to give completely off-the-cuff answers in the middle of an argument. I accept that this is a serious matter, and I do not


think that serious matters should be answered glibly and without thought or consideraiton.

Mr. Willis: In so far as tax relief is given, the bigger the house that one buys and the bigger the mortgage, the bigger is the subsidy.

Mr. Bence: And the bigger the income.

Mr. Stodart: Perhaps I might now try to get back to my chain of argument, which has been almost completely destroyed. I was saying that the only people who could operate the scheme in such a way that it would achieve equity and confidence would be the Inland Revenue. However much we dislike the Edinburgh eighth district or the Kirkcaldy second district, or wherever the hon. Gentleman pays his Income Tax, if he does, I think I can say that we find the Inland Revenue fair to deal with.
I wonder very much whether my hon. Friend remembers an article which appeared in the Scotsman in February last year giving ideas for tying up the rents of local authority houses with Pay-as-you-earn. The broad idea was that the Inland Revenue, through employers, should collect rents and pass them on to local authorities twice a year or so. Everybody in a local authority house would be re-coded, and the scheme would be operated as the pay-as-you-earn scheme is. The only business which persons occupying local authority houses would require to do at the city chambers would be to write on a form their Income Tax reference number and those of all other members of their family who were earning. They would merely fill in, say,"Mr. John Smith, reference No. A/1234/XY". It would then be intimated to the Inland Revenue that that individual was in a local authority house, and the Inland Revenue would do the rest.

Mr. Bence: I am very interested in the proposal to link this with the Inland Revenue and pay-as-you-earn taxation. Would the hon. Gentleman agree to the application to the rents scheme of the method now employed by the Inland Revenue whereby if a man paying P.A.Y.E. loses his job in December and is unemployed until 5th April, he gradually gets a rebate of the Income Tax which has been deducted from his earlier earnings?

Mr. Stodart: I do not want to weary the Committee with the details of this scheme. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, he can easily obtain particulars about it. The idea has the backing of, among others, a lecturer in social and economic research at Glasgow University. I believe that this is no more revolutionary an idea than P.A.Y.E. appeared to be when it was first suggested. I am certain that numerous people said"This cannot be done. It is an absurd idea". I have no doubt whatever that the Treasury, with its traditional reluctance, said that such a scheme would be impossible. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend to look at the papers, which I shall be delighted to send him. A considerable amount of correspondence ensued about this, and certainly no insuperable objections were advanced.
I have two minor points to put in conclusion. First, does my right hon. Friend think that the value of improvement grants is sufficiently appreciated in doing up old derelict properties? A grant is an enormous advantage not only to the person who collects it but to the local authority itself. One example I know well is that of an old and completely derelict house whose owner paid £5 in rates. There was no water, electricity or any other amenity. The local authority made an improvement grant of £400, and when the job was done, 18 months later, the rates became £60—and that was before revaluation took place. That was a very good investment for the local authority and it will quickly get its £400 back.
I think that we have our sense of values wrong. For instance, it is absurd that one can get a 33⅓ per cent. grant to put up a farm building to house cows and pigs but that there is no grant available, other than through the hill sheep scheme—which is to come to an end anyway—for cottages for farm workers. Either the farm improvements scheme for cattle units and pig houses should be abolished, which would be a tragedy, or farm cottages should be brought in under the scheme for these improvement grants.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in a detailed examination of


rent rebate schemes. However, I have read something about the idea of relating rent to P.A.Y.E. There are quite a number of objections, however, because to some extent a local authority has to be able to ascertain in advance exactly what its income is likely to be over the following year.
It seems rather odd in some ways to hear the hon. Member, who is a farmer, indicating that the public purse should be protected by municipal tenants paying higher rents, because no evidence has been adduced that affluent farmers refuse to dip into the public purse themselves. The hon. Member did what most hon. Members opposite do when discussing this subject. He dealt with only part of the housing liability of a tenant. He made no mention of the rate liability. Surely, when one rents a house one pays not only the rent but the weekly portion of rates, and both should be taken into account as the proportion of average weekly earnings spent on the house.

Mr. Stodart: I do not agree, for that is confusing the issue. The hon. Member is adding something which has no part in the housing costs. The rates keep services like the police, street cleaning and education going. To include the rates as he does is concealing the true cost of housing.

Mr. Gourlay: The hon. Gentleman does not understand local government finance sufficiently to appreciate that a very large part of the rate-borne expenditure covers local authority subsidies to housing and also the loan charges. Thus, the total amount of money a tenant pays in rent and rates is the figure which should be related to his total outlay.
We are often told that the municipal tenant in Scotland pays a much lower rent than his opposite number in England But, on comparing a tenant's outlay in England with the outlay of a tenant in Scotland, we find that there is not nearly as big a difference between the two as hon. Members opposite try to indicate. The hon. Member quoted figures about higher pre-war rents. If we compare pre-war and post-war rents and rates, however, we find that the tenant is now paying a substantially higher proportion of his wages on rent and rates than he was pre-war.
The hon. Member tried to sustain the Government's building programme by saying that they had to consider the various aspects of the building industry. He said that we could not overload the industry. But surely if the Government stopped the proliferation of petrol stations and many other unnecessary buildings we could build not only more houses but more schools and hospitals.

Sir J. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman entirely underestimates the problem. Refusing to build a few petrol stations will not make enough difference. In my county, where there is to be a new power station and new schools, unless we get industrial retraining and a largely increased labour force we have no hope of success.

Mr. Gourlay: But it is not only petrol stations that are concerned. Many other types of building are quite unnecessary and they all have a big effect on the building industry.

Sir J. Gilmour: rose—

Mr. Gourlay: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
Other hon. Members opposite have indicated that the record of the Labour Government after the war is ample justification for the record of the present Government from 1951 onwards. But one should compare like with like. No one could justly suggest that the conditions obtaining immediately after the worst world war could be compared with conditions between 1951 and 1963.

Mr. John Brewis: rose—

Mr. Gourlay: I am sorry. I have given way enough already.
This afternoon we heard from the Under-Secretary of State his usual words. But we did not hear from him about more houses. The records his Department has issued over the years have indicated a reduction in the annual number of houses provided. He said that higher rents would be one way of solving the problem of housing. This parrot cry we heard from the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) when he was Secretary of State. There is no evidence that those local authorities with high rents, such as Edinburgh and Dumfries-shire, are able to build more houses than other authorities.
Not long ago, when the Government were justifying the Rent Act, which enabled landlords in certain circumstances to raise rents to practically any level they wished without any difficulty, Lord Hill and the present Home Secretary said that the housing problem in the country was solved. Now the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, in association with the Secretary of State for Scotland, presents us with a White Paper indicating that the Government have suddenly realised that there is, after all, a housing problem. They seem to have made a discovery, and in this White Paper we are told that they are to step up the programme, but we are not told how.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, this savours of approaching an election period. In answer to a Question about houses by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the former Secretary of State said:
…the number required to provide for population increases and increases in the number of households may be about 125,000. For replacement of existing houses about 175,000 may be needed, making a total of about 300,000 houses over the ten-year period."—[Official Report, 28th February, 1962; Vol. 654. c. 145.]
That is an average of 30,000 houses a year. Today, the Under-Secretary said that the Government intended to build 35,000 houses a year, and that is another sign of approaching a General Election.
The Government's housing performance has been miserable. Page 4 of the Housing Return, Scotland, 31st March, 1963, shows that the highest rate of building in Scotland since 1945 was in 1957, when local authority, Scottish Special Housing Association and privately built houses totalled 32,437. That figure has come down over the years, and in 1962 it fell to 26,761. But closer examination of the figures shows that the number of houses built by local authorities and the S.S.H.A. to rent was 28,924 in the first of those two years and only 18,977 in the latter year. In other words, at a time when more houses than ever have been needed, 10,000 fewer have been available to rent. That is the miserable record of the present Tory Government.
Incidentally, this has been at a time when most other European countries have been building more houses per head

of the population than we have in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that in West Germany about 10·1 houses per 1,000 of the population were being built. It may be said that necessity was the major reason and that the bombing and devastation of Western Germany were the driving forces behind that high rate. But Sweden was not involved in war and the Swedes have been building at 9·8 houses per 1,000 of the population. Despite the urgent necessity with slum clearance and overcrowding, apart from the high marriage rate, in Scotland we have been building only at the rate of 5·3 houses per 1,000 population.
Interrupting the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that there was some dissatisfaction in the Bathgate area by B.M.C. about the provision of new houses for that industry. The Under-secretary said that he did not accept the statement. But that statement was made in the presence not only of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, but of Members from both sides of the House, including myself. I can assure the hon. Member that there is that dissatisfaction about the number of houses provided in that area.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend confirm that, if there is a fault, it does not rest with the West Lothian County Council, which has been tearing out its proverbial hair to try to provide these houses?

Mr. Gourlay: I agree. I am not apportioning blame to the West Lothian County Council. I understand that one authority, which may have a political colour different from West Lothian's, may be involved in the responsibility for the small number of houses being provided in the area.

Mr. Stodart: As one who heard those words, too, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm that the deputy chairman of B.M.C. was scrupulous to point out that he did not know and could not say where the fault lay?

Mr. Gourlay: I am not suggesting that he did. He was merely indicating the problem. As public representatives—and some of us are members of local authorities as well—we know where the fault


lies. I do not entirely blame Bathgate Town Council. I blame the Government, because if they were in earnest about improving the Scottish economic position by encouraging industrialists to come to Scotland, they would give additional financial assistance to authorities in areas faced with additional building programmes, apart from the necessary programmes required for their own people. I ask the Secretary of State to have a much closer look at the problem, which, we hope, will arise in many other parts of Scotland in the not too distant future—if it does not, there is little hope of salvation for the 90,000 unemployed in Scotland.
The Under-Secretary went on to talk about building techniques. In paragraph 47 of the White Paper we are told that a special effort has been made to increase housing output by encouraging co-operation among housing authorities and by the use of new building techniques. Paragraph 48 says that the Government will seek to secure a still faster way to progress in subsequent years. While I agree that new building techniques are needed, their lack is not the fundamental reason why we still have a housing shortage in Scotland. The fundamental reason is the lack of finance provided by the Government to assist local authorities to build houses. Although many Ministers have repeatedly denied the charge, we still repeat it, because it cannot be refuted.
Some smaller authorities could be helped in ways other than improving building techniques. Some have development areas which they are anxious to clear and rebuild. For that they require some form of temporary housing for those who have to move from properties to be demolished and who are to return to the area later. Some authorities have applied for subsidies for these temporary houses. Burntisland is a case in point, but the right hon. Gentleman refused to give subsidy assistance or other help to Burntisland, which was particularly keen to speed up redevelopment of the town centre.
When the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1962, was introduced, with the new subsidy structure, the then Under-Secretary said that the real purpose of the new subsidies was not to save money for the Government, but to maintain the normal

increase in the total amount of annual subsidies. Yesterday, I received a reply from the Secretary of State showing the total amount of subsidy paid in each year since 1958–59. We find that in the year 1959–60 there was an increase of £558,000 in the total amount of subsidy paid to Scottish local authorities. In the following year, 1960–61, the increase was £518,000. In 1961–62 the increase was £649,000. Then we come to the first year in which the 1962 Act was in operation. In 1962–63 the increase in the subsidy paid dropped to £306,000. Thus the point that we made in Committee when the Bill was going through the House, that the real intention behind the new subsidy structure was to save the Government money, has been borne out by the figures which the hon. Gentleman's Department issued only yesterday.
Another answer which I received from the Secretary of State yesterday in reply to my question about the number of local authority houses which were in receipt of the various new rates of subsidy causes me to return to the point that the real intention of the Government was to save money, even though this was denied by the Ministers of the day. The figures show that 435 houses built by local authorities are in receipt of the £12 subsidy, which is £12 lower than the subsidy paid prior to the 1962 Act. Only 260 houses are in receipt of the £32 subsidy, which is £8 more than was paid prior to the 1962 Act. A simple arithmetical calculation shows that over the 60-year period of the subsidy on these houses the Government will make a net saving of £188,400.
What interests me more than anything else is the fact that when the Bill was going through the House both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-secretary, both in the House and in Committee, stressed the fact that the subsidy structure was being based on a method of assessing the needs and financial resources of the authorities, and that the authorities in the rural areas would receive a higher rate of subsidy, perhaps even as high as £56, but in the answer that I received not a single Scottish authority is shown to be in receipt of the higher rate of £56, which again illustrates the point that the Government introduced the new subsidy structure with a view to saving themselves money.
On the question of rents, the hon. Gentleman said that the average wage in Scotland was about £15 a week. I do not know where the figure came from. It might have come from some digest of statistics, but it is certainly not related to the position obtaining in my constituency and in many others in Scotland. In fact, within a week 750 of my constituents in the linoleum industry will be without a job. Over the years these men have earned nothing like £15 a week. Their basic wage is about £9 10s., and yet the hon. Gentleman says that we should have increased rents for municipal houses.
The hon. Gentleman instanced that the average rent represented only 4 per cent. of wages earned. They may be 4 per cent. of £15, but if one takes the average rent in Kirkcaldy, one finds that it is a very much higher percentage of the normal wage which people receive in the linoleum industry, the coal industry, or in any of the ancilliary industries in the district. The Government have consistently refused to state what they consider to be a reasonable rent. They always shelter behind the assessors who have been appointed in various parts of Scotland to assess the value of various properties.
The hon. Gentleman suggested this afternoon that the gross annual value of a local authority house should be regarded as a reasonable rent. In fact, he went further and said that it should be the gross annual value, or more. He was careful not to say less, and on this point perhaps I might quote some of the g.a.v. figures for Scottish local authority houses. Starting with the highest, in Dunfermline it is £55 per year. In Kirkcaldy it is £54. We then come down to some that are £47, some that are £44, and then to quite a number below the £40 mark. How does one get away with describing g.a.v. as a reasonable rent? Is £39 a year rent in Inverness a reasonable rent while one has to pay £54 in Kirkcaldy? Why the tremendous difference? The hon. Gentleman ought to come into the open and say specifically that it ought to be a percentage of the wage, or a specific figure, and not hide behind the assessors of Scotland who are charged with the duty of assessing the value of houses, and some of whom are not doing a very good job.

Mr. Willis: In which areas?

Mr. Gourlay: In Fife for one, and the county assessor knows it well enough. He knows my views on the subject.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that no one expects to gain popularity by increasing rents. This, of course, is true. But I do not think that any local councillors expect to gain popularity by increasing rates either. It is not true to say that members of local authorities deliberately suppress rents to gain popularity. This seems to be a popularly-held view among hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not think that it is one which reasonable and understanding people share.
I think that most local authority representatives fairly face their responsibilities, only they consider the interpretation of those responsibilities in different ways. Some of them find it very difficult indeed to increase the cost of housing to the municipal tenant when they realise that millions of £s are taken from municipal tenants and ratepayers throughout Scotland every year to pay tribute money because of the exceptionally high interest rates which are being charged.
The hon. Gentleman talked about subsidies and said that the Government's purpose in providing the increased subsidy of £32 and £56 was to help those local authorities in need of it. But in 1946 the overall subsidy for local authority houses was £26, and I am sure that if we relate £26 at that time to present-day values we shall find that both the £12 subsidy and the £32 subsidy fall far below the amount of Exchequer money which the Labour Government thought fit to give to local authorities to enable them to provide much-needed houses in Scotland.
I was interested to see the housing return issued in March of this year, because I find that two boroughs in my constituency, Kinghorn and Burnt-island, have no houses under construction, yet I know from my mail that there are a number of people in those areas who are desperately in need of houses. It is not that there is no know-how in that part of the country, even before we come to the question of new


building techniques. The major reason why these two boroughs are not building houses is the inadequate subsidy which is being paid, and I hope that the Government will do something very soon—even before the election if they think that this will get them more votes—to increase the subsidies paid to local authorities.
In Kinghorn there are houses under construction by private speculative builders for sale. Some of these houses have been standing empty for six to nine months despite the fact that people in the area are desperately in need of a house. In dealing with the problem of housing hon. Members opposite have said that if only we would increase the rents of municipal houses in Scotland we would solve the problem. To believethat a higher rent structure would be the salvation of Scotland's housing problem is to live in a world of fantasy.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) will forgive me if I do not follow his arithmetical arguments. Enough has been said about rents. I want to take him up on the point he made about the number of houses being built in different places. It seems to me that his own burgh of Kirkcaldy has not done too badly. Mention hasbeen made of a figure of 10½ houses per 1,000 population in Germany, and on my calculations the burgh of Kirkcaldy has had under construction in the present year about eight houses per 1,000 population, which is a very commendable figure. It belies the argument that Kirkcaldy is suffering because of a lack of adequate subsidies.

Mr. Gourlay: One of the reasons why Kirkcaldy has done very well is that it has had a Labour housing convener for many years. That is one of the major reasons.

Mr. Hendry: Be that as it may, I congratulate Kirkcaldy on its success under the subsidies provided by the present Government.
The housing problem in Scotland is still desperately bad, but Rome was not built in a day, and the Government have done pretty well, on the figures. Year

after year after year they have produced more houses than were produced by the Labour Government in the period 1945–51. In the years when the Labour Government were in power it was comparatively easy to build houses—[Interruption.]—because there were plenty of sites and it was merely a matter of going ahead and building. I know, because I was involved in building council houses at the time. It was comparatively easy.
In this year of grace local authorities are up against all the difficulties of redeveloping central areas. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) knows that quite well. He knows what difficulties Glasgow Corporation is up against.

Mr. McInnes: The hon. Member must be aware that two Government commissions, appointed in 1950–51 to go into the question of housing costs and housing production, conceded that the period 1945–51 was a difficult period, because we had to wait until the men were demobilised. There was a shortage of both building material and manpower. It was utterly impossible to build houses in those years.

Mr. Hendry: It may have been a difficult period, but this is an even more difficult period. We are producing not only houses but hospitals, schools and what not.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member is forgetting that the Labour Government planned and made it possible for a Tory Government to build 39,000 houses per year. When Lord Strathclyde became Joint Under-Secretary he acknowledged that it was largely due to the planning of the Labour Government.

Mr. Hendry: I did not want to be come involved in this long arithmetical argument. My experience is that the Labour Government set a target of 24,000 houses per year—

Mr. Willis: They made it possible to build 30,000.

Mr. Hendry: —and then rationed out those houses among the different local authorities and said,"That is your share. You will build those and no more." That is my experience. It is true that if a local authority got on


pretty quickly with its programme and then went to St. Andrews House it was often able to obtain authority to build more houses to the extent that another authority had fallen down on its job.
But as soon as the Tory Government took over the situation changed. The Government said,"Right. You know how many houses you want and you know what the building industry in your area is capable of doing. Get ahead and build them." That is why, in their first year of office, the Conservative Government far surpassed anything that the Labour Government had done.

Mr. Willis: Because the Labour Government had planned it.

Mr. Hendry: From then we have gone on, year after year after year, not only producing a great number of houses but also more hospitals, schools and so on.
Another side of the housing problem is slum clearance. It is easy to forget that under this Government, from the time their slum clearance drive started in 1955 to the end of 1962, no fewer than 79,679 slums were demolished or closed in Scotland. That is something of which this Government can rightly be proud. It is something that the Labour Government failed to do.
The Government, in their housing reports—not only this housing report but the report of the Scottish Development Department—show that they are alive to the problem and are giving a great deal of thought to ways in which the situation can be improved. It is still bad because of a number of problems, of which the centre of Glasgow is one. There are still 50,000 slums in the centre of Glasgow, and the sooner they are cleared out of the centre and replaced by decent houses the better it will be, whether it is done under a Conservative or a Labour Government. I do not care which Government do it, but it must be done. This Government have given a great deal of thought to the problem, and I am sure that under them it will be dealt with in a short time. In my view, the present Government are the people who can obtain the quickest results.
I have dealt with the arithmetical arguments at greater length than I intended. I now want to consider another aspect of the housing problem. In Scotland, with its heavy slum problem

and its shortage of housing accommodation, it is easy to regard housing as an end in itself and to divorce it entirely from all other considerations. I was therefore extremely glad when my right hon. Friend's predecessor decided to set up a Scottish Development Department to bring the problem of housing into proper focus, along with all the other developments that are now taking place in Scotland.
I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend has continued the process. He seems to have given a great deal of thought to co-ordinating the problem of housing with the other sides of development. That is obvious not only from the Report of the Scottish Development Department but in respect of certain other new concepts, which I welcome. In particular, I should like to draw attention to page 31 of the Scottish Development Department Report for 1962. In paragraph 15 the Department speaks about consortia of local authorities, and states that the Secretary of State felt that different local authorities—in the same area and probably having the same sort of problems—should co-operate one with another in order to see their housing problem not as individual authorities but as a combination of authorities in the same area, working out their overall needs and by that means producing greater efficiency and dealing with the problem as a whole in accordance with the needs of the area rather than with the needs of anyone local authority.
That concept was carried further in the White Paper which my right hon. Friend produced the other day—The Modernisation of Local Government in Scotland. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the various implications of the White Paper. It is rather like the curate's egg—good in parts—but one extremely interesting point is mentioned in paragraph 13, where my right hon. Friend points out that
A multiplicity of local boundaries—the corollary to a large number of authorities—may also affect adversely the rate at which a desirable development affecting more than one authority can be planned and executed.
That is particularly true of housing, where a small local authority is not prepared to incur heavy capital expenditure and heavy rate expenditure, and I welcome this suggestion and congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it. I


see behind this the hand of the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Leburn) who has had these ideas for a long time. He should be sharing my congratulations.
Having referred to the necessity for local authorities getting together and regarding their areas as a single unit and developing it as such with the help they would get from the Government Departments, I wish to pass on to what is probably the greatest problem in Scotland—certainly the most spectacular—the problem of Glasgow. This enormous local authority is bursting at the seams. Over the years it has grown up higgledy-piggledy in a most dreadful way, especially in the centre. Its large population must be rehoused quickly. These people cannot be rehoused within the city. They must be found housing accommodation outside. Every hon. Member will agree that that is a crying necessity.
Overspill is not purely a matter of housing. We must also consider the redeployment of industry. When contemplating the question of Glasgow's overspill, we must also think of the redeployment of Glasgow's industries. We must be very careful to get our priorities right, and if we regard the matter only from the point of view of housing we are liable to"put the cart before the horse".
k
The average local authority would feel most unwilling to accept part of Glasgow's overspill and provide housing, at its own expense, unless it were assured that industry would come with the houses or in anticipation of their provision. The Development Department Report refers to retaining in Glasgow those concerns which have a real claim to stay in Central Glasgow. It is not made clear what industry has such a real claim and I criticise the Report on that score. It does not give any lead about how to decide what industry in Glasgow should be redeployed. Although I may not get an answer tonight—it may be possible to have the answer next year—I should like my right hon. Friend to indicate the plans for redeveloping the centre of Glasgow, and what local authorities in other parts of Scotland may expect in the way of industry, as well as population, from Glasgow. A great many areas

in Scotland would welcome people from Glasgow, provided that there was work for them to do—

Mr. Bence: And schools were provided.

Mr. Hendry: I will come to that in a moment.
In Glasgow we see a great city bursting at the seams while other parts of Scotland contain large areas, sometimes almost whole counties, where there is a rapid decline in the size of the population. It is an intractable problem. It is difficult to find an answer. The Local Employment Act does not give the answer. This piece of legislation is a good tool to use for bringing industry to an area where there is a large measure of unemployment—

Mr. McInnes: It is a wash-out.

Mr. Hendry: My experience is otherwise. It does not provide the answer in an area where there is no unemployment because the people who would be unemployed have gone to Aberdeen, Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and to other such places and thereby increased the problems created by over-population. A great deal of thought must be given to retaining the population in such areas where people are inclined to leave, and if necessary to restoring the population to such areas.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to schools. There are excellent schools and hospitals in some of these areas. I am afraid that some of the hospitals are being closed down. Medical attention can be provided. There are shops and local amenities. Many such places are delectable spots in which to live, and the people who have left there would like to go back. Many of the people from Glasgow would like to live in such areas. But it would be impossible to restore the population to these places unless industry can come there too.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central knows that in Glasgow there are a great many small businesses which could operate just as well in other parts of Scotland. It seems to me essential to persuade the people associated with these industries—I do not know how that can be done, housing subsidies will not provide the answer—to leave Glasgow for other parts


of Scotland where the provision of employment for even half-a-dozen people is a matter of great local importance.

Mr. Lilley: How does my hon. Friend reconcile the idea of industry leaving Glasgow with the fact that for many years we have tried to induce light industry to come to Glasgow? We want to keep what we have.

Mr. Hendry: I did not say anything about light industry. I was referring to small industries. The tragedy of Glasgow is the imbalance of industry. A new sort of industry is required. But a great deal of the industry already in the city could be moved and could work elsewhere. If other parts of Scotland are to accommodate the overspill from Glasgow, the industry must go to—

Mr. William Baxter: Does not it indicate a complete misunderstanding of the position when two members of the Government are at loggerheads as to whether industry should move out of Glasgow or into the city? Will the hon. Member tell us what is the policy of the Government which he supports?

Mr. Hendry: I thought I made that clear. I am not a member of the Government—

Mr. Baxter: But the hon. Gentleman supports them.

Mr. Hendry: —but I think I can see what the members of the Government have in mind. It is all in this Blue Book containing the Report to which I have referred, and if the hon. Member will read it he will find out for himself. It is made clear that the industry of Glasgow is completely out of balance and must be brought into balance. This means that not only must people be taken from Glasgow, because that alone would not help very much, but we must bring new types of industry into Glasgow and move out certain kinds of industry already there—

Mr. Baxter: Such as what?

Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Member would allow me to finish my speech he will then know what is in my mind.
I said that this is an extremely difficult problem which requires a great deal of thought. I do not think that the

hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) was present when I began my speech, and when I congratulated my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary for the imagination they had shown in trying to see this problem in a new light. But a great deal of thought must still be given to it. I do not ask my hon. Friends to answer tonight—

Mr. Baxter: Why not?

Mr. Hendry: —but I suggest they continue with the thought which is already being given to this matter and try to regard the housing problem in Scotland not as an isolated matter but as part of the redevelopment which is so urgently needed and which I am certain that in future years they will continue to recognise.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: Although I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), I found it difficult to follow whether he supports the Government or is opposed to them. At one stage he was uttering the most reactionary statements, yet at another he seemed to be supporting the Opposition.
I wish to make three points. One is on the question of overspill and the difficulty of rehousing Glasgow's population. The Government and the whole country must face the issue that we are not dealing with this problem in the fashion in which we ought to be dealing with it. We have not yet recognised that it is by new towns that the problem will be solved and that absolutely fundamental to that proposition is that industry should be transferred with the rehousing, indeed, in some instances in advance.
The Government have claimed from as far back as 1954, and in the 1956 Housing (Repairs and Maintenance) Act and the Housing Act, 1957, that those Acts would solve the housing problem. Housing would become more free, there would be more houses available for letting and the mobility of labour would be enhanced. We claimed at that time that all the Acts would do would be to unload a larger number of small houses for sale on the market and that people would be penalised thereby. I am fortified in that statement by what has happened and is happening in the City of Glasgow in respect of the pressure brought on


tenants, particularly old people, to buy their houses.
One old-age pensioner of 80 in a street in my constituency has received a letter from the house factors saying:
We write to inform you that we have received instructions from our clients that it is desired that the flat which you occupy should be sold and before having a notice served on you by sheriff officer we are instruc-same. If, therefore, you are interested in the ted to give you the first offer to purchase purchase of your house, will you arrange a meeting with our Mr.—in the course of the next seven days, but if we do not hear from you within seven days, we shall assume you are not interested in purchase, and of course you will appreciate that your tenancy can be terminated.
This is a shameful and shocking practice. Two stairs above this old lady is another who is aged over 80. She is blind and is in the same position. This is a direct result of the Rent Act. The consequences will go very much further than even the Government thought at the time of the passing of that Act. The Government have no answer except that sheriff officers and courts will be applied to for certificates for the eviction of people of such an age.
Another consequence of the Government's policy is seen in high interest rates and the fact that they are claiming that, because of increased incomes, people should be able to buy their homes. That is begging the question of the number of people below the £10 a week wage level in Scotland. According to the Scottish Digest of Statistics, of the total number of wage earners in Scotland, 1,864,800, the number earing £1,000 and over a year before paying tax isonly 209,520. The Government have to bear in mind that chairmen of building societies have said that any applications which come before them for mortgages and loans will be examined to see if they come up to certain standards. One of those standards is that the husband must have an income—disregarding any income of other members of the family—equal to about £1,000 annually before building societies will grant a mortgage.
In view of the contrast which I have drawn showing the few people in Scotland earning such a salary, is it not time that the Government re-examined their whole policy in the light of this

and particularly in the light of the statement made in the White Paper that more encouragement is to be given to builders who will build houses to let? How many houses have they built to let in Scotland? None at all. Despite the blandishments here, they will not build houses to let. Even if they did so, according to paragraph 35 it is proposed to let these houses at rents between £4 and £7 a week, exclusive of rates. Is that the Government's policy in Scotland? In view of the very low salaries in Scotland, is that the policy? If it is, surely it is a farce in present economic circumstances.
Policies other than those announced in this White Paper or in recent Government statements will be required to meet the challenge of housing conditions of people in Scotland in general and in Glasgow in particular.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: I have listened to the debate with much interest. There has been a good deal of reference to statistics but, being no great believer in statistics, I will not touch them with a barge pole. Despite what has been said today in denigration of Scotland, I hope that anyone who comes to Scotland as a tourist does not think of the country as a large slum. Scotland has its beauty, and I wish that some people would say a little more about the beauties of Scotland and even of the City of Glasgow. Even Glasgow has its beauty. It has its slums, too.
Much has been said, particularly by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), about builders building slums. I have never heard such nonsense. I never saw a slum built in my life. What he said was a denigration of the building industry and the men who take the trouble to build the houses. Years ago these houses were built, and they were admirable. If that is not appreciated, it should be.

Mr. Dempsey: Single ends.

Mr. Lilley: I am not talking of single ends or a room-and-kitchen. Some years ago there was a councillor in Glasgow known as But-and-Ben Jock, for even then he was complaining bitterly about Glasgow Corporation building so many large houses and refusing to build room-and-kitchen accommodation which is


badly needed. In Kelvingrove I could not care less what size the house is as long as it is a new house for some of the people there who are living in what were good houses and are now slums. Some of the people who see me on a Saturday morning tell me that they have been offered houses in some of the new housing schemes in Glasgow but would prefer to remain in the so-called slums. I hope that we are not creating new slums for the future.
On the question of overspill, I have said before—I mean this sincerely—that Glasgow must keep its industry. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) spoke of the requirements of Irvine. It requires industry. Let it get all the industry it wants. I know that it has been doing very well. However, we in Glasgow need our industry. It is shocking that people in industry, whose families have been there for over 100 years, should be told that they must get out of Glasgow.
We hear much about the interest charge in relation to housing. What effect has this on industry? The Corporation of Glasgow buys ground under a compulsory purchase order and at the same time charges £600 a year on a 100-year agreement. There are other places in Glasgow where the Corporation is charging as much as 20 per cent. on the money spent. I have said this before in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I want to speak about method. This could help my right hon. Friend the Minister. Surely it is conceivable that the existing services in Glasgow—roads, sewers, water, electricity—could be left where they are. Surely we could clear the slums and rebuild in one movement. We could demolish, rebuild and decant whilst still using the existing services.
I have said this before. I have brought it to the notice of Ministers in the Scottish Grand Committee. I have mentioned a piece of ground in Govan. I once stood as a councillor for Kinning Park. There was a piece of ground there on which we suggested that it was possible to build and decant from the buildings behind it. The buildings behind it have now gone. The people have gone. What do hon. Members think is on that first piece of ground? There is a petrol filling station there.
Hon. Members talk about building houses. Glasgow built under 1,000 houses last year. [HON. MEMBERS:"Two thousand."] There is a difference between"built" and"completed". The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that there were not enough builders either in Glasgow or in Scotland. Glasgow has one of the biggest building organisations in the country, yetit built under 900 houses and completed 2,000 last year. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) will agree that the same organisation is there today that built 5,000 in a year. How much ground has Glasgow? Is it prepared to build, or is it following a Shavian principle—"What's yours is mine, and what's mine's my own"?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) mentioned the Rent Act. I do not think it is fully understood by hon. Members that the Rent Act as such leaves me in my constituency with tenements four houses tall, where the top and bottom ones went at £30 or £40 and the ones in between—the sandwich houses—went at £42. Under the Rent Act people in the same sized house pay £105 a year for a house in the centre and people upstairs and people downstairs pay £38. This is how the Rent Act operates. However, I acknowledge that some people in Glasgow are taking advantage of the Rent Act and I should like to see them dealt with. They put people out of their houses and re-let the rooms at 35s. a week, with no surety. That figure includes rates, but there is no surety.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: In the very little time that is left, it is not easy to take part in a debate on housing. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) say how much he objected to the Rent Act and how opposed he was to it. Perhaps, if unfortunately he is with us after the next election, he will vote for the repeal of the Rent Act.
The hon. Member said that we were inclined to be too critical of the City of Glasgow, and he wished that we would speak more of the beauties of Glasgow and less of the slums. I am as fond of Glasgow as anyone could be, but there is no doubt that we have slums. If we can devise some method in the House of


bringing the human problem involved in living in the slums of Glasgow to the forefront, make those slums a challenge to the whole of our modern living and culture, and solve the problems of Glasgow, the problems of housebuilding and slum clearance in the rest of the country will be comparatively simple. There is no other place that has quite such a bad record as a result of the exploitation of the industrial revolution, of dragging people in from Ireland and the Highlands of Scotland and herding them together under quite inhuman conditions.
A previous medical officer of health for Glasgow quoted the figures for an area close to the area I represent, a fairly large area, where the density of people living there was comparable only with the density of people living on the waterfront at Shanghai. In the 1930s, the infant mortality rate in Glasgow was so bad that there was a famous cartoon in one of the national newspapers, immediately following on the medical officer of health's report, of a stork carrying a baby and the baby saying to the stork"Drop me at any place but Glasgow or Tokyo." Because of our appalling housing conditions, the insanitation, and the enormously cramped quarters in which people were living, infant mortality had reached a level in Glasgow that I hope will never come to any other part of the country. We do not now compare this city with the Far East, and I do not know whether that is because we have improved it so terribly much or that the population explosion in the Far East has made it relatively so much worse off, but in comparison with even the worst English city—probably Liverpool is one of the worst-housed cities in England—the occupancy ratio in Liverpool is enormously better than the occupancy ratio in Glasgow. The Minister of Housing has given the figure of ·89 persons per room as being a reasonable occupancy rate. In Glasgow the rate is about 1·3 persons for the city as a whole, although there are enormous stretches where the rate is as high as two and even three.
I want to get this problem out of the realm of statistics. I appreciate that figures must enter the argument, but statistics do not give comfort to people living in bad housing conditions. To-

morrow evening I will be meeting some of my constituents, decent men and women with families, who are living in single rooms. Many of them have been living under these conditions for many years. For ten or twelve years a great number of them have been on the municipal housing list. I have little hope of immediately getting decent homes for them—homes in which they may bring up their families with a modicum of comfort.
The situation in Glasgow is so bad that special legislation must be brought in to deal with the problem. We must get away from the idea that we can consider this from a national point of view alone. There are black spots in many parts of Britain, and Glasgow is one of them. Parts of Liverpool and, no doubt, parts of London are black spots. We must launch a two-tier system of relief for the really bad areas, and I would go so far as saying that completely free of interest loans should be made available to these black spots.
This may sound an easy, perhaps ridiculous solution, but everyone knows that if the Polaris base or submarines should eventually cost £20 million or so over the estimated figure there will be a certain amount of claptrap but the money will be made available. If that can be done for such military purposes surely the Government must appreciate the necessity of doing something similar for the badly housed. So many young people are involved that we must give them the chance of having decent lives, in decent, uncramped conditions, so that they may become decent citizens. Something drastic is needed to solve the problem of the housing black spots, of which the City of Glasgow—my constituency—is one of the worst.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: Since the beginning of the 'twenties Scottish hon. Members have been turning their minds to the problem of Scottish housing. There is, perhaps, no other subject about which, year after year, more passion and anger has been expressed. More frustration has been caused by bad housing conditions in Scotland in the last 40 years than by any other single subject.
If during today's debate it has appeared that hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies have dominated the scene, the reason is simply that


bad housing dominates Glasgow. There seems to be a perpetual cloud of evil housing which we cannot dispel.
We have had teazled out from this side of the Committee the performance of the Government and their promises. If any area has had promises from the party opposite it has been Scotland. It has been the promised land. We have been promised everything but have got nothing. We do not even get the truth. I have no doubt that tonight the Secretary of State will paint his usual bright picture of the prospects for Scotland—while he will probably be telling himself or another audience the truth about Scotland's housing in a week's time. In the same way, he misled the House last week about the Scottish economy, and then admitted to the Scottish T.U.C. that the outlook was bleak. We want to know what the outlook is for Scottish housing, and for the people who have to live in such conditions.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is not here, but I can assure him that I got angrier and angrier with every minute he spoke. I think that we have become so familiar with this problem that we tend to be slightly callous about it, but every now and again we are jolted into a sense of reality. There are the homeless—40,000 of them in Scotland; the people in slums—over 300,000 slum dwellings, with nearly 1 million people in them. What does that mean?
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made a very serious mistake in a very good speech—the best speech we heard from that side. He said that we must do something about housing because the houses that people live in form their character. That is not true. It is the home that forms the character, and the home is not the four walls. It says something for the character of Scottish mothers, fathers and grandmothers that they have reared such fine people despite the housing handicaps that have been placed on them.
Every Scottish housewife who has to contend with this problem is waging a battle against dirt and disease, and against something that offends human dignity. We talk of the teen-agers, but let us think of the conditions in which they are growing up in so many parts of Glasgow and Edinburgh, in so many parts of Dundee, and in some of our

older burghs as well—and in the countryside, too. It is a struggle for dignity, for respectability, but I sometimes think that hon. Gentleman opposite treat housing rather as a vexatious and irritating matter.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) put this subject into a historical context, because unless we understand the historical context we are not able to appreciate the realities of housing, and the reactions of Scottish people. The fact is that after 1950 even the Tory Government appreciated the immensity of Scotland's housing problem, which is a vast heritage from landlordism and capitalism in its rawest form in the nineteenth century.
After 1950, we got, even from a Tory Government, a matching of the problem with the subsidies. They increased the subsidies in 1952. Why did they do that? They did it because they realised the effect of the increased cost of money. Interest rates had risen, and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Stuart of Findhorn, gave that as his reason in the Scottish Committee.
But something happened to the Tory Party after the election of 1955. I think that when the Tory Party is in crisis the people are in danger, because a Tory Government has to buy the loyalty of their back benchers. I notice that The Times today said something about a new strand that had crept into the Tory party after the 'fifties. People used pressures, and a new turn took place in Scottish housing—a turn to squeezing more profit out of Scotland's festering heritage.
The local authority, which had been recognised since the time of the Royal Commission in 1917 as the one authority and the one agent that had to bear the main responsibility for meeting Scotland's housing needs, was crowded out.
We had even today the despairing plea from the hon. Member for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), who has made it so often and has pinned his faith so often in private enterprise financing for building houses for sale or to let. Private enterprise has let Scotland down, because there is no money to be made out of it. What did we get with the Government's policy of decontrol? We had private enterprise still making money out of Scotland's vile housing by selling


slums, and young people in Scotland buying slums because they thought that thereby they would get priority for rehousing.
It is the Government's record that we are debating today, not the Labour Party's record, and the Government's record is that last year they built fewer houses in Scotland than the Labour Government did three years after the war. Can any patriotic Scotsman get up and justify that? It should be remembered too that we built houses when that was not the only thing that we were doing in building. There were millions of houses down here in London which had to be repaired, and the people of Scotland did not mind the fact that there was a concentration of building labour here to do that.
Let us look at the record for this year, because only on that record can we justify any confidence in the promises which the Government are making about what they will do for Scotland in future—and they are making plenty of them. The record for this year shows quite clearly that in Scotland the number of houses built has gone down steadily from 1953. Year by year it has gone down from 39,000 in 1953 to 26,000 this year, but it is not just that. The number of local authority houses has gone down to 16,000 a reduction of 50 per cent.
When my hon. Friends talk about Cowcaddens, Woodside and Bridgeton, do hon. Members think that the people in those places are building private houses? They are dependent entirely upon the local authority. These are the people whose housing has been reduced and reduced.
What about private building? It has trebled, but private building in Scotland has no appreciable effect upon the housing problem. Where have these 7,000 houses been built? Where are the worst housing areas in Scotland? Glasgow? How many private houses are built in Glasgow? Port Glasgow? How many private houses are built in Port Glasgow? Greenock? How many private houses are built in Greenock?
The places where they are built are St. Andrews, Prestwick, Troon and Newton Mearns. These are the places where people are using their wealth to purchase what they want. If in future

we are to put our faith in the ability of the Scottish working man or a young couple being able to buy a house, we had better get busy with the Scottish economy. It is not a matter of unwillingness to own one's own house. We have nothing in principle against it. I own mine. Most of my hon. Friends own theirs. But what is the prerequisite of owner-occupation? The Government tell us themselves in their latest White Paper, the one with the name of the Secretary of State tacked on after the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with sentences shoved in here and there about Scotland.

Mr. Dempsey: An afterthought.

Mr. Ross: An afterthought? I do not think that there was any thought in it.
The one thing said about owner-occupation is that it is for people who have the means, for people settled in their careers.
We have 94,000 unemployed. Last week, the Secretary of State told the T.U.C. that we should have just as many next winter. The outlook is bleak. Does the Secretary of State think that building societies are prepared to lend money to people in these circumstances? Does he imagine that Scottish people are prepared to take on a burden of debt like that? They are particular about these matters of finance in Scotland. Most of them were reared and taught to buy things when they had the money to pay. This is the history of Scotland.
I sincerely hope that there will be a complete change of policy on the part of the Government because, if there is not, we shall not get the requisite houses. Taking every authority building houses in Scotland today, apart from the speculative builder—the local authorities, the Scotish Special Housing Association and even the new town corporations—they built fewer houses last year than they built a year before. It is a story of continuing failure.
Yet what a wonderful opportunity there is. At last, people are beginning to realise that our housing situation offers an opportunity to clean up Scotland. People talk about drab housing schemes. I agree that we have lots of them, but they are the old ones. It is refreshing to go through the new towns. It is refreshing


even to go through Kilmarnock. The hon. Member for North Angus spoke about a lack of consideration in design. He should look at the photographs of the scheme in Cambuslang, the scheme for old people's houses in Kilmarnock, and see that we are now paying more attention to design, appreciating that we can make grave mistakes which are not easily removed in the present housing situation.
But we are not giving our people a chance. The root of all this failure lies in the change of Government policy of which I spoke. Interest rates are absolutely vital in Scottish housing. This has been said time and again by everyone who builds houses. It was said by the hon. Member for North Angus himself tonight. He was prepared to do something for young scientific workers, key workers and the rest coming into the new areas. Why should they have priority in finance over people in the slums of Glasgow who have lived and been brought up in them and whose fathers and mothers were brought up in them?

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Gentleman asks me a question. My answer is that it is of vital importance that we should encourage the growth industries in Scotland upon which the future of our economy and employment depends.

Mr. Ross: Indeed, yes, but, if we carry on with the present housing policy, we shall not have the skilled workers. It is our skilled workers who are leaving Scotland because they cannot find work and because they cannot get decent houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that our ability to provide the houses we need, and the kind of houses we need, depends upon the prosperity of Scotland. I do not disagree, but I do not think that they should get priority over other needs. It. is equally essential that they should clean up Scotland and get rid of the scars of the industrialism of the past. It is a cynical comment that it was private industry which created the slums, and now the slums are handicapping us and preventing us from attracting private industry into Scotland. Therefore, let us bend our energies to this task and

ensure that our financial policies are suitable for it.
That means reducing rates of interest. We talk about rates of interest, and hon. Gentlemen opposite reply about rents. This all stems from the same thing—the Government's policy and determination that the homeless and overcrowding in Scotland should bear the brunt of an inflation with which they had nothing to do but which the Government created and caused. The Radcliffe Committee reported that we could have reduced rates of interest for these social purposes. It is essential that we should. That is why my hon. Friends are right in saying that it is a red herring to talk always about rent. It is really a question of whether we are determined to get on with the task and get the socially necessary building done. It is an absolute scandal if the Government do anything to impede the building of houses.
What should our target be? We are getting new targets. The Prime Minister comes to Glasgow and decrees that the sun has shone. At that time we thought there was a General Election in the offing, and so did he. So the sun had to shine. He decreed that the spring had come and the songbirds of the Tory Party were about to sing their songs of the 'seventies, and the kilted canaries of the Scottish Office had to join in. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland read this advertisement that I have here before he allowed his photograph to appear in it.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman wear his kilt?

Mr. Ross: There were an awful lot of Scots people who were following a certain piece of news. This was rather an ill-timed advertisement for the Tories. I merely noticed it when I was turning towards a story on page 11 of the Scottish Sunday Express. I saw a headline:
 'Cut out this cant', says Maudling.
so I cut it out. This is a Scottish paper, appearing only in Scotland, and, presumably, read only by Scottish people, and there was a photograph, not a terribly good one—there were far better photographs in the paper that day—of the Secretary of State for Scotland:
whose job it will be to launch the new housing programme north of the Border.


It is exactly the same as an advertisement that appeared south of the Border with a photograph—a much better one—of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But the Minister of Housing and Local Government had a statement to make. He said:
It is my job to launch this programme so that housing will keep pace with the rising economy and rising standards.
Why was that missed out of the Scottish advertisement?
The advertisement says:
Housing: The big leap forward. A thousand new houses a day—and at least 500 older houses modernised every day.
Most of the people in the slums of Scotland who are overcrowded and those who are homeless would settle for one instead of a thousand. Is Scotland to get 1,000 new houses a day? No. There was a wee bit in parenthesis. The Government are, in fact, building 35,000 houses less than they were building in 1953. That is the pattern of the great new leap forward. We are, on the contrary, leaping backwards. If the truth had been put in the Scottish headline, it would have stated 96 houses a day.
What is the truth about the statement about 500 older houses being modernised every day? I have here the figures for Scotland. The answer is that nine older houses are being modernised every day. Because the programme for new houses has been made, the other one did not start at all. Indeed, three out of every four of these modernisations are by owner occupiers and bear no relation to the houses we really want to be improved.
Who is subsidising whom? The Scottish taxpayers must be subsidising an awful lot of improvement grants in England at no benefit to themselves. Here is the pledge. Does the right hon. Gentleman support it?
The housing shortage has already been greatly relieved. The new plan aims to wipe out the housing shortage for good.
Then it promises to build 35,000 houses a year in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman will not even deal with the slum problem at that rate. By the time he has finished in ten years he will have as many slums as he started with, unless he remodels the whole aspects. If he is banking on housing associations and the building societies and is squeezing

out the local authorities, it means that the local authorities will be building only about 16,000 houses a year, 10,000 of them for slum clearance and 6,000 for all the other needs.
We will not have cleared the slums at this rate because the slum problem is not static. It is one that grows and in ten years time we shall have more of them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not here. In 1935 he went down on his knees to thank heaven for Sir Godfrey Collins' great new slum clearance proposals. Sir Godfrey said that in five years' time the Scottish slums would have gone. They are still there—worse than ever. The only thing I regret is that the hon. Member for Ayr is still with us too.
The advertisement went on:
We shall tackle our biggest problem of all—that of a growing population.
But that is the one thing we will not tackle, because we have not got a growing population in Scotland. Every year25,000 people leave Scotland. That is why we have not got a growing population. We should have, but the Government have failed Scotland throughout their twelve years of office
What is to be done about all this? Nothing is said here about the land. Nothing is said about the difficulties of Glasgow's overspill. What is the right hon. Gentleman to do to ensure that the land is available, and available at the right price? The local authorities are encountering some of the results of the Government's policy in relation to town and country planning.
Hon. Members will remember that we were told that this was theoretical in Scotland because there were no difficulties there. But the difficulties are nevertheless there, both notional market value is now beginning to be the value and Lord Howard de Walden is charging higher rents not just for petrol pumps around Kilmarnock but for building land as well. That is what is happening in Scotland, and it will continue to happen.
What is the Secretary of State to do about that? What is he to do about interest rates, or subsidies? Above all, what is he to do about organising the people of Scotland and the building industry of Scotland? The building industry is not, or should not be, static.


There are more Scots people building factories and office buildings in England than there are building houses in Scotland.
We challenge him to do something about land, to do something about the building industry, to do something about the financing of housing and for goodness' sake to give the local authorities a chance and their head, and to give the people of Scotland a chance.
I quote one paragraph from a leader in The Times of today:
This is at heart an eager, noble, and generous people.
That is true of the people of Scotland, too.
What Britain wishes above all to see on the great stage of affairs is a new attitude. She enforced that wish in 1945. She will do so again. The appeal to affluence is about done.
The appeal should be to dedication, to service, and to Scotland.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): The Committee has listened with great interest to many speeches, and certainly to the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He had the support of the whole Committee when he talked about the importance to Scotland of the whole of our development plans. When, as occasionally happened, he seemed to me to be rivalling Alan King, whom I saw at the variety show in Glasgow last night, it was amusing but out of keeping with the general feeling in the Committee about housing in Scotland today.
On two occasions he spoke on a theme which I believe to be entirely unacceptable to hon. Members or to Scotland. He said that housing was dependent entirely on local government, and that private building made no appreciable difference. Those were his words as I took them down. He suggested that the Government were banking on private enterprise and were aiming to squeeze out local authorities from the whole of our building operations.
This is entirely and completely untrue, and the hon. Member knows it perfectly well. I know that this feeling has percolated through years if not decades of Socialist thinking, and I do not expect it to change overnight, but there are many people in Scotland who see the

advantages of co-operation in this respect.
As I listened to the debate—and this is the first on housing which we have had for two years—I thought that this was particularly important because it seemed that serious and devastating though some of the social problems in our slums undoubtedly are, there was a feeling, more widely expressed than I remember in earlier debates of this sort, that housing was closely linked with the whole of the economic development of Scotland.
There were one or two themes which went through the debate and on which I should like to comment before turning to particular speeches. The first was the theme of the small house. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and many others.
I agree with the hon. Member for Craigton when he says that the problem of the small house is to some extent a traditional one in Scotland. It is a traditional pattern from which perhaps we have not departed quickly enough, but it is none the less true—and I think the Committee must accept this—that the pattern of local authority building is not laid down by the Government; it is chosen by each local authority [Hon. Members:"Oh."] This is so. Local authorities submit their plans, and they say in what proportion they want the varying sizes of house to fit in with their own local needs at any moment.
As hon. Gentlemen know, the subsidy is not graded according to the size of the house, and the economic difference between building a two-apartment house and a three-apartment house is very marginal.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is marginal. If one gets the same subsidy for building a two-apartment house as for building a five-apartment house, surely from the economic point of view the pressure is on a local authority to build the smaller house?

Mr. Noble: The difference between the two- or three-apartment house is marginal.

Mr. Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Noble: It is true that many of the slums in Glasgow are being cleared, and I give Glasgow Corporation the full merit it deserves for its speed in trying to redevelop these areas which contain a large number of small houses.
It is unfortunately true—it may be our tradition—that Scotsmen are by nature independent. I think that Scotsmen by nature do not like sharing their houses with, I shall not say mothers-in-law, but other members of the family, and because old-age pensions are better I think that more old people are able to afford to live in small houses, and want them.

Miss Herbison: They go to the National Assistance Board for their rent.

Mr. Noble: I agree that the rate of building small houses today may be too high, but in the surveys which local authorities have been making over the last few years this high rate was their request to balance perhaps the few small houses for older people in the past.
The second general theme which has run through the debate is the question of a differential rate of interest for house building. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have stated all the way through that the one factor which is holding back house building in Scotland today is high interest rates. This point was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), the hon. Member for Kirkaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay)—though I unfortunately missed his speech—and by many others.

Mr. Rankin: I did not say that that was the one factor which was retarding house building. I said that it was perhaps the chief factor.

Mr. Noble: I said that this was a main theme which ran through many of the speeches.
I think that the point about which the country and the Committee have to make up their minds is exactly what we are going to do in the form of differential rates of this kind. When my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) dealt with this point, he did so in relation not just to a specific type of social service, but to Government policy as a

whole. He said that if this was necessary, education might need to be brought in as well as roads, hospitals, and other things of that sort, and hon. Gentlemen opposite asked,"Yes, and why not?" It is possible for any Government to decide, if they want, to have a special low rate of interest for certain things which they consider are more important than others.
The hon. Member for Craigton suggested that building societies should be included in the same low rate because they were held up to some extent by the current rates at the time. If we are to do this, however, we must be clear what we are sacrificing. Do not let us think that we can shovel something under the carpet as a sort of hidden subsidy. We must know how much of our national investment—and that is what housing comes to in the end—isbeing given a specially low rate of interest, because then our people can judge whether we are prepared to face the cost of it. If, in some other form of investment, the proper return is 4 per cent., 5 per cent., or 6 per cent., we must know exactly what it is costing the country to have an artificially low level of 2 per cent.
If we do not do this we make economic fools of ourselves. Hon. Members opposite know that at the end of the period when a low rate of interest was maintained right through the economy, as it was during their six years of office, certain economic and financial difficulties faced the country in 1951.
The policy which we are trying to work out as best we can is to deal with interest rates through subsidies to local authorities. It is not right for hon. Members to talk about a certain rate of subsidy for a certain house costing so much at this moment. The whole purpose of the subsidies is to balance not the cost of an individual house but the whole housing account of the local authority concerned. In our White Paper we have promised to review this question with the local authorities, so that if help is needed for some of the purposes that have been mentioned it can be given.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Noble: I have many points to make. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to try to answer the debate as quickly as I can.

Mr. Ross: I will leave local authorities out of the question and debate the obvious case. What about the new town corporations? They have had to borrow all their money in dear money periods. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do something about that? We want to test the sincerity of what he has just said.

Mr. Noble: The new town corporations together with my staff, are examining this problem in relation to the fact that all their houses are new ones and are being built in a period of high interest. I have had a discussion with them, and I have no doubt that I shall have others. We are discussing this problem. But the new towns are not in the same category as some towns which have corporation houses dating back over 30 or 40 years.
The hon. Member for Central asked me whether I was satisfied with the rate at which we were clearing slums at the moment. I am not. The speech of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary made this absolutely clear. At the moment I cannot give the Committee accurate figures relating to the problem of overcrowding. Although the impression that we have gained from many local authorities is that the position is getting better, the census figures which are being worked on have not come through yet in nearly a complete enough state to claim that the position is much better, or to say exactly what it is.
The hon. Member for Govan referred to areas in Glasgow where roughly 700 people are living to an acre. This, alas, is a fact, and it illustrates the extreme importance of the overspill problem in the city. Unless we can get new houses built in the overspill areas for these people to move out to it is certainly not possible to redevelop these areas—something which must be done.

Mr. McInnes: Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers that we debated the question of overspill a fortnight ago, when it was revealed that the Government had not attained even one-third of the target set.

Mr. Noble: I am afraid I cannot accept that from the hon. Gentleman. There are many points which I wish to cover, and so I should like to get on with my speech.
The hon. Member for Govan said he could not accept the Votes this year because—if I remember his figure accurately—they were £454,000 less than last year. This, as a matter of fact, is purely an accounting adjustment. Last year there was £1,193,000 in the Estimate for the Scottish Special Housing Association. This year there is only a token amount of £10 because it had an excessive surplus in its repairs fund. If we take this element out of the figures, the increase this year is £738,000, and so I hope that the hon. Gentleman may reconsider his position.
He also said that the deficit per house on existing subsidies was very serious, even with £54 as a notional rental. If there was a rental of anywhere near £54 on existing houses—this is over the whole housing account—there would be no need to put any burden on the rates in most areas at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson)—

Mr. Rankin: But surely—

Mr. Noble: I am sorry, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Rankin: But that is unfair.

Mr. Noble: —because there are many points which I wish to answer. It was a long and interesting debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart spoke of the drop in the number of houses which he said was due to the change from building on virgin land to central sites. Everybody who has studied the figures knows that my predecessor said to the House for several years that while that was going on there would be a drop in the number of houses. The figures given by my hon. Friend indicate that now that Glasgow has successfully tackled this problem the figures are moving up—perhaps not quite so fast as we should like, but very fast indeed.
The other point made by my hon. Friend related to office building. This point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). My hon. Friend said that if there was, as it were, a competition between housing and office building, housing should receive priority. I think that, to some extent, this would be acceptable to many hon. Members. But


we must also realise that if as a country we are to grow economically in the way we wish, we must have some new office building. This is a problem which has certainly been acute in London, but nothing like so acute in our Scottish cities. I hope that we may attract more people to Glasgow and other cities in Scotland. Office work provides important employment for school leavers and others. This matter of office building and housing is a question of balance and it is not something which may be settled by a snap decision.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Noble: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue—

Mr. Ross: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying,"I hope that we shall attract people.…" We put this point to the President of the Board of Trade, who was not prepared to do anything. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do anything about it?

Mr. Noble: It is certain that unless we have modern office blocks we shall not attract the people, and to that extent some development of this sort is necessary.
I thought that the hon. Member for Craigton made a first-class debating speech which was slightly marred, perhaps, by the fact that he was more than a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He accused my hon. Friend of misleading the Committee over the question of the target for slum clearance. I know that when someone is speaking it is difficult to keep an exact check on the words used. But my hon. Friend clearly said that the three-year period finished at the end of 1964 and the latest date for which he had figures was March and the figure was 13,000, so that I do not think there was any question of misleading the Committee about this. He also felt that it was dishonest of my hon. Friend to refer to a target of 35,000 houses for Scotland. I quite agree that it might have been set out as such in the White Paper, but surely there is nothing dishonest in telling the Committee the figures which one thinks are reasonable and realistic for the immediate future. The hon. Member also said that no Minister had mentioned the land prob-

lem. I think that when he reads my hon. Friend's speech he will find a considerable reference to it.
I accept the fact that over the last four years we have been lower than England in the league table. We were also above England, as the hon. Member fairly said, for nine years before that. We must not too slavishly demand comparisons between England and Scotland. I do not think the hon. Member would like to rely on the different levels of rents in Scotland and in England, even taking into consideration earnings in the two countries.
Unlike his hon. Friend who wound up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Craigton realised that there was an important part for private building to play. If he follows his own argument he will admit that if we have a policy in Scotland whereby local authority rents are very low indeed it is made exceedingly difficult for private enterprise to build houses and to find tenants for them.
He rightly said that the number of people employed in the building industry was not static and that 20,000 extra had come in since 1959. I have not the exact figures on which that was based, but the hon. Member always does his homework very carefully and I accept that as right. It is important to realise that we can get more skilled workers into the building industry only if we have co-operation from the trade unions, and I am sure we shall have it. The hon. Member asked when we last talked to the building industry. That is the natural function of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, which keeps in very close touch with my Scottish Development Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus asked about the situation at the B.M.C. plant at Bathgate. I also visited that plant in May so I know something of its particular problems. Both in regard to that and to Linwood the suggestion he made has been carried out. We have had conferences with these big developing industries, before they arrived, to discuss all these problems of housing. Even an industry of the size of B.M.C. or Rootes at Linwood cannot always be certain how fast it will develop. The phasing of the houses is therefore rather more difficult than one would imagine at the beginning. When I was there in May


I was told that the development had suddenly come on faster than had been expected and I was asked if they could have another 240 houses by September. This is the sort of problem which, however carefully one plans, is very difficult to provide for, because to provide 240 houses in four or five months must mean, as it were, pinching houses which some other authority is already building for its own purpose.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) was, I think, unfair to my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State by suggesting that he had given some housing site to a private contractor just because he was a Tory politician. I do not believe the Committee would accept that for a moment.

Mr. Dempsey: Why not?

Mr. Noble: It is also fair to say that it would be difficult to find a private enterprise builder who was a Socialist.

Mr. W. Baxter: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Noble: I said it was difficult; I did not say it was impossible. I agree with the hon. Member about the problem of design for housing. There are good designs in Ayrshire, Inverness, Argyll and many other areas, irrespective of their political complexion. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East spoke about the problem of getting extra labour into the industry and illustrated this comment with a reference to the problem of skilled labour in his area. He spoke of the value of improvement grants—a point taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). These are important, and we have done our best to give them wide publicity, because if we are to keep pace with the needs of slum clearance we have the twin problem of new building and the maintenance and repair of the houses which are falling into decay.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs said that it was unreasonable to relate reasonable rents to gross annual

value. I am aware of the particular situation in Fife, and I have never said that these should be equated. All that I have said is that the gross annual value is the best guide which is available to local authorities of what a reasonable rent should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, spoke about the possibility of tying the rebate system to the Inland Revenue in some form. This might be difficult, but it is an idea worth looking at. The Scottish Special Housing Association, which has run this satisfactorily for a number of years, finds that it can do it without such a complicated system.

The problem before Scotland today is one in which housing development and industrial growth must go hand in hand. The new towns have shown the importance of attracting industry by having modern housing and modern facilities there for it. I agree with both the hon. Member for Craigton and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that in Scotland we are often not sufficiently angry about the housing position. We have tolerated it—and this goes through all sections of the community. We have not converted the anger which one has reason to feel about slum conditions into constructive new ideas. I believe that in promising to meet the local authorities on subsidies, and in the increases which have already begun to show in the number of houses under construction, the Government are playing their part. I believe that local authorities, too, should look very carefully not only at rents but at the whole of their management of housing generally, so that we make the best use of the houses which are available to help us in this problem. I believe, with great hope, that the trade unions, which have a great part to play if we are to change our system of house building, will help us in getting the best solution to this very important problem.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That Item Class III, Vote 2 (Scottish Home and Health Department), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 212.

Division No. 156.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Beaney, Alan


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Guy
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bence, Cyril




Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hilton, A. V.
Pargiter, G. A.


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Parker, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. C.
Hooson, H. E.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics.S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Boyden, James
Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crosland, Anthony
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reid, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Palsley)


Darling, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Diamond, John
Ledger, Ron
Skeffington, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Lubbock, Eric
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Small, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, James
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Steele, Thomas


Fernyhough, E,
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Fitch, Alan
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Manuel, Archie
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Taverne, D.


Ginsburg, David
Marsh, Richard
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Timmons, John


Greenwood, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Grey, Charles




 Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Gunter, Ray
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E)


Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, B. K.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Lawson and


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Charles A. Howell.



Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Arbuthnot, John
Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hastings, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Crawley, Aidan
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Crowder, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barter, John
Cunningham, Knox
Hendry, Forbes


Batsford, Brian
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Bidgood, John C.
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hocking, Philip N.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Doughty, Charles
Hopkins, Alan


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Edward
Hornby, R. P.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Box, Donald
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Braine, Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Iremonger, T. L.


Brewis, John
Finlay, Graeme
James, David


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, J. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Foster, John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bryan, Paul
Gammans, Lady
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Buck, Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.


Burden, F. A.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Kershaw, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Kimball, Marcus


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Chataway, Christopher
Gough, Frederick
Lagden, Godfrey


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Green, Alan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Leburn, Gilmour


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cleaver, Leonard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Cole, Norman
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Cooke, Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)







Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Longbottom, Charles
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pitman, Sir James
Teeling, Sir William


Loveys, Walter H.
Pott, Percivall
Temple, John M.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Pym, Francis
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Turner, Colin


Macpherson, Rt.Hn.Niall(Dumfries)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Turton, Ht. Hon. R. H.


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Marlowe, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Nell
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Matthews, cordon (Meriden)
Roots, William
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
St. Clair, M.
Walder, David


Mills, Stratton
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Montgomery, Fergus
Shepherd, William
Webster, David


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sheet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Whitelaw, William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Smithers, Peter
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Speir, Rupert
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wise, A. R.


Orr, Capt., L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles
Stodart, J. A.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Worsley, Marcus


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Summers, Sir Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Partridge, E.
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Gordon Campbell


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
 and Mr. MacArthur,


Peel, John
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (FOODSTUFFS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order 1963, dated 28th May, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.—[Mr. Green.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Order concerns duties on a number of important foodstuffs—chicory, coffee, cocoa, glucose, sugar, tea and other commodities—and since this is a question of not imposing for the first time the maintenance of certain taxes on foodstuffs, we should have an explanation from the Government of what it is they are asking us to do.
I realise that this is the transforming of duties from one guise into another and not imposing them anew, but it is continuing them. As I understand it, under Section 3 of last year's Finance Bill there was a reduction made in these

duties and it was provided that they should be transformed from Revenue to protective duties. I do not understand why, if this was primarily enacted by last year's Finance Bill, it should be reaching final legislative fruition now.
I do not think that my hon. Friends and I have any objection to transforming these from the form of Revenue duties to protective ones. We have no complaint about the name, unless it has some further significance that has escaped us. However, one naturally asks why, apart from sugar, for tea, coffee, cocoa and chicory, we impose protective duties. The difference between a protective and a Revenue duty usually is that a protective duty falls on the imported but not on the home-produced commodity. Presumably there is no home-produced tea, coffee or cocoa, so the name seems at first sight odd. If it is a protection in the sense of a duty which falls on non-Commonwealth and not on Commonwealth products, in that sense it is a preference and not a protective duty.
I have always found that tea and sugar duties remain somewhat of a mystery. They always seem to be abolished in successive Budgets while we find, a few years later, that they are still in existence. I remember that a substantial reduction was made in the Budget of 1949, at the


time of a Labour Government, in the tea and sugar duties. I thought that we bad abolished them altogether, I know that £11 million was taken off tea and £22 million off sugar. These are substantial sums. However, we found in last year's Finance Bill that these duties were still there both on sugar and tea.
We were then told by the present Home Secretary, then the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that the Government were freeing all home-produced and Commonwealth tea, sugar and the other commodities I have mentioned. However, they are apparently still with us because they are now being transformed into yet another form.
We are, therefore, given an opportunity tonight to discover the facts. How substantial are these remaining taxes, which I take to be purely there not for Revenue or protection—apart from the special case of sugar, which is a highly complicated matter—but for a somewhat symbolic preference for Commonwealth producers? Is any substantial revenue raised? If it is, is it not a tax on the consumers of a staple food? Is there good reason for continuing these taxes in existence? If the revenue is negligible, what purpose are they achieving and why should we not get rid of them? The sugar aspect of the matter is highly complex, and I will not enter into it now—there is a subsidy on home-produced beet sugar, there is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and so on—but the same complications do not arise in relation to tea, coffee and cocoa, and I wonder whether any useful purpose is served by continuing those duties.
I presume that it will be said that the sole purpose is to maintain a form of preference in favour of the Commonwealth product. I presume that tea from India and Ceylon is tax-free, while tea from China is subject to tax. I suppose that coffee from Kenya, and in British territories in East Africa is tax-free, and that from, other African territories and Brazil is subject to tax. Does that really achieve anything useful? Is there any reason why we should not follow the general policy of making all these food imports, from the Commonwealth and elsewhere, duty-free? That, after all, is the position with wheat, and I wonder whether there is good ground for having

a quite different system for tea, coffee and cocoa.
Does the Minister of State think that it is of any practical value to the tea producers of India and Ceylon, to the coffee and cocoa producers of British territories in Africa, to have this tax on the non-Commonwealth product entering the United Kingdom? I should have thought that the Indian and Ceylon tea producers could compete perfectly well against any producers in China without any tax at all. However, that may not be so.
I should have thought that, broadly speaking, the right principle for staple foodstuffs of this kind, and particularly for tropical foodstuffs, would be to have free entry for the product wherever it might come from, and whereas with regard to sugar and in other cases there is need to support home agriculture, I should have thought it would have been better to do it by way of subsidy or deficiency payment. I think that should be the broad principle—

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that I am following this. Would there not be a duty whether or no the House approved the Order? Does it make any difference?

Mr. Jay: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had just come to the end of my remarks, but this Order certainly removes one set of duties while imposing another, so we are not merely removing the duties in one form but imposing them in another. I therefore presume that it is in order to discuss whether we should reimpose them, and I hope the Minister will be able, both in terms of his knowledge and the rules of order, to answer some of my questions.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Alan Green): The first question, which I hope is in order, is: how substantial are these taxes? The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this is essentially a transference from revenue to import duty, and it follows the pledge given by my right hon. Friend in his 1962 Budget. Before dealing with how substantial these taxes are, I should like to answer the direct question about the delay.
Many of the duties previously in force on composite goods, that is goods containing sugar or cocoa, or both—made-up manufactured goods—were over-elaborate. These have been simplified


wherever possible, which is a good further product of this Order. Working out simplified rates, in some cases in consultation with the trades affected, together with the need to work out new drawback schemes under Section 9 of the Import Duties Act, 1958, accounts mainly for the delay from the passing of the Finance Act, 1962, to the introduction of this Order. We had to consult some trades that were marginally or directly affected in order to be sure that we were not affecting them in a way we had not intended. That is the reason for the delay.
How substantial are these decreases? In 1961–62, before the rates were reduced, the yield to the Revenue was about £17 million. As a consequence of the action of my right hon. Friend in 1962–63 the yield was a good deal less than half of that. This is where we pass into the kind of mystery that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned and under which he laboured when he was in power.
The effect of this Order in terms of revenue will be negligible, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to know that it is substantially less than half the £17 million.

Mr. Jay: Is that £8 million, or whatever it now is, in sugar and tea?

Mr. Green: A substantial part of it will be sugar. There is, I agree, therefore this extra complication. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly excluded sugar from the argument, because there is a home-protected element in that as well. He went on to ask whether I thought that the remaining Customs element was of real value to the Commonwealth. This was his key question. I can only give the facts in the case.
On tea there is a 2d. per lb. duty and it is guaranteed to Commonwealth suppliers. On coffee there is a 9s. 4d. per cwt. duty which is guaranteed to India and Rhodesia. It is a fact that under the Ottawa Agreement we have given these guarantees and we cannot unilaterally get rid of them. This, therefore, is the reason why in the transference from revenue to protective duty we have retained what we guaranteed. I hope that with these words the right hon. Gentleman and the House will accept the Order.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman said that the effects of

the Order in terms of revenue would be negligible, but I believe that it is true that under this Order some of the commitments which we have undertaken under the E.F.T.A. Agreement, which would have taken effect on 1st March, 1965, have been anticipated. Therefore, to that extent there must have been some reduction in the revenue that will be received from these duties.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says that the duty of 2d. per lb. on tea and 9s. 4d. a cwt. on coffee have been guaranteed under the Ottawa Agreement. Does he say, therefore, that in these circumstances, whatever a future Government might decide, we are never entitled to revoke these duties?

Mr. Green: With the leave of the House I would say to the hon. Member that, first, on E.F.T.A. he is quite right. We are acting within our E.F.T.A. obligations. The hon. Member and the House may recall that we can either remove any protective elements in revenue duties in instalments, in step with the normal E.F.T.A. timetable for the removal of duties, or take single action by 1st January, 1965. We chose the second alternative, and in view of the acceleration of the E.F.T.A. timetables we proceeded to take this step at an early date. We are acting completely within our E.F.T.A. obligations.
The hon. Member asked whether the E.F.T.A. obligations made any difference to the revenue-bearing effect on the consumer of these commodities. The plain answer is that practically all our supplies of these commodities come from the Commonwealth and are duty-free. We retain the preferential margin for the reason I gave—because this is guaranteed I hope that the hon. Member would not ask me to make a hypothetical case as to what a future Government might or might not do in consultation with the Commonwealth. All I am saying is that we are doing this in line with E.F.T.A. obligations previously undertaken and we are not rescinding guarantees given to our Commonwealth friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 4). Order 1963, dated 28th May, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — THE GAMBIA (CONSTITUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: The matter which I have to raise is a complicated one and I hope, therefore, that the House will permit me to refer rather freely to my notes in order that I may give a concise account of it in the very short time at my disposal.
On 28th May this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced in the House, in reply to a Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), that he had advised the use of an Order in Council the effect of which would be to set aside the judgment of the Gambia Court of Appeal which had declared certain elections in the Gambia general elections of 1962 to be invalid. The decision of the Court of Appeal reversed an earlier decision by the Gambia High Court which had, in fact, upheld the validity of the elections.
The Order in Council came into operation on 6th June, when the House was inrecess. There was, therefore, no opportunity to discuss the matter in the House, apart from the brief exchanges on 28th May. I am, therefore, grateful for this opportunity to ventilate the matter.
The issue before both courts turned on the validity of the1961 register on which the 1962 elections had been held. This 1961 register of electors was quite distinct from the 1959 register on which the 1960 elections had been held. Indeed, the 1959 register of electors should have had validity until 1969, subject, of course, to certain amendments, deletions and additions. However, an amending Ordinance was introduced in Gambia in 1961, the purpose of which was to amend certain provisions of the electoral law in view of the impending general elections in 1962. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the object of the amending Ordinance of 1961 was to provide for the compilation of entirely new registers and that imprecise wording of one phrase in the Ordinance had given rise to the Court of Appeal's decision which had invalidated the register.
A perusal of the 1961 Ordinance does not support this view. There is nothing in it specifically or by inference authorising the compilation of new registers. Furthermore, the Chief Justice in the High Court in his judgment described the making of the 1961 register as a sheer waste of time and energy. However, he declined to declare the register invalid because he thought that Section 10(e) of the 1961 Ordinance had the effect of validating this irregularity. The Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that this was not so and accordingly declared certain elections in the Protectorate, not the Colony, invalid.
There has been quoted in support of the 1961 register Section 6(a) of the 1961 Ordinance which provided for certifying registrations and said that
upon such certification such registers shall be deemed to have been lawfully compiled.
Even so, it seems clear to me that the intention was that the 1962 elections should be held on the 1959 register, subject to certain amendments. In spite of this, a completely new register known as the 1961 register, was drawn up.
This register, by the way, was the subject of many criticisms during the court hearing and several gross irregularities have been alleged. In particular, I might mention, it was alleged that six of the registration clerks were actually potential candidates at the forthcoming elections. Whether those charges have been investigated or not, I do not know.
In any case, the appeal judge confirmed the view of the High Court that the 1961 register should never have been drawn up, and it was on this point that he declared the elections in certain constituencies invalid. He concluded that Section 6(a) of the 1961 Ordinance, which has been quoted as validating the1961 register, did not, in fact, have this effect since its purpose was to validate only the lists of voters which would operate in amendment of the 1959 register.
The effect of the Appeal Court's decision is that the elections to all the 25 seats in the Protectorate have been rendered invalid, leaving only the seven Colony members and the four Chief's representatives validly elected. Clearly, this"rump", as it has been called, cannot legislate for the territory or operate


effectively as a government, neither can it validate the 1961 register.
The opposition party, headed by Mr. P. S. N'Jie, which was, incidentally, defeated at the elections, feels very strongly that the Appeal Court's decision should be upheld and that fresh elections should take place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 28th May that Mr. N'Jie's opposition party, the United Party, which was defeated at the 1962 elections, was in power when the 1961 register was drawn up, and therefore, since it did not object to that register at the time, it had no case now.
I do not wish to speak at any length on that point, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will say some words about that. I just want to say that Mr. N'Jie, who was then Chief Minister, says that he had no influence at all on the compilation of the register since he was in that respect regarded as only the head of a political party.
But in view of what I have said it seems to me a serious matter that Her Majesty's Government should validate registrations which have been declared invalid by the highest court of law in the Gambia. It further appears that the 1961 register was not declared invalid owing to the imprecise drafting of one phrase in the 1961 ordinance as my right hon. Friend alleged, but rather that a phrase in that Ordinance was wrongly assumed by the High Court judge to validate the 1961 register, and this view was rejected by the Appeal Court.
I think that I should mention here that the validity of the Order in Council itself could be challenged, owing to the dual character of the territory, which comprises both a Colony and a Protectorate, but I do not wish—I am not, indeed, competent—to argue that point, which is a purely legal one.
I should like to say that the future of the Gambia is at present in the balance. It is recognised that it is a small unviable territory with a very uncertain future should it become an independent State and, indeed, moves are afoot for it either to join the neighbouring French-speaking territory of the Senegal or

associate with it in some sort of federation.
This is a matter of the highest possible constitutional importance to the Gambia, and, in my view, the negotiations for this should not be left to a Government who have been declared to be invalidly constituted. I freely admit that it is essential that the actions of the present Gambian Government should be validated till a new Government can be elected. But there would seem to be a very strong case for the argument that a new Government validly elected should bear the responsibility of negotiating the future of the territory.
In view of this, I urge that a new Order in Council should be introduced arranging for the drawing up of entirely new registers under independent control, and that a new Government should be elected under these new registers. Obviously, this will occasion considerable delay, but in a matter of such importance it is, in my view, essential that Her Majesty's Government should be seen to act impartially and not proceed in an apparently arbitrary manner to flout the decisions of the highest court of law in Gambia. The opposition party in the Gambia feels very deeply aggrieved at the action of the Secretary of State, and takes the view—which I must admit I share—that the future of the territory should be decided only by a validly elected Government clearly reflecting the views of the electorate.

10.36 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Not very many hon. Members have been to the Gambia, but those who have will hold this oldest Colony in West Africa, with so long a history and so loyal for so many centuries, in great affection.
I do not want to add very much to what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has said. The only point I want to emphasise is that I rather dislike the attitude which the Secretary of State took when he kind of threw the blame on to the then Government of the country, headed as it was then by Mr. N'Jie.
This, as my hon. Friend said, does not seem to be right or relevant. This is, and was then, a colonial administration. These are matters which fall in the main,


as I understand it, within the province of the colonial Government and the colonial Governor. If we are to establish this Colony on the road to democracy, we must ensure, as my hon. Friend said, that the Government are elected on a duly constituted franchise and a duly constituted register.
I must say that the action that my right hon. Friend has taken so far is right and proper and, indeed, inevitable in the circumstances, but we have to clear the decks for a different approach in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend will find it possible to withdraw in the main the suggestion that the then party in power was in any way responsible for what happened.

10.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has called this debate"The Gambia Constitution"; and in view of this, although it has no connection whatever with the points that he has raised, I would like, first, to take this opportunity of informing the House—because I do not think that it has appeared in the British newspapers—of an announcement made by the Governor of the Gambia in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, that important constitutional changes will shortly take place in the Colony.
The Governor has, in fact, announced that the Secretary of State has agreed to grant full internal self-government to the Gambia, and that an Order in Council will be submitted to Her Majesty later this year. I thought that it might be of interest to the House if I drew attention to that point.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Does that mean that in some ways the hon. Gentleman is forestalling the claim made tonight that it will not be possible for him to take action as requested by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. K Pannell)?

Mr. Fisher: That was certainly not my intention. What action I propose to take, or my lack of action, will become apparent as I come to my hon. Friend's arguments. No, this was quite innocent. I just thought that the House should be informed of this important development in the Gambia.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale for raising this, as he said, very complicated matter, because it is of some importance to the Gambia and deserves, I think, to be ventilated and clarified. Of course, the opportunity my right hon. Friend had to do this on 28th May was inevitably circumscribed by the limitations of time and form which a statement after Question Time imposes.
As my right hon. Friend then explained, the 1959 register of electors was, by common consent—and I do not think that this is disputed—unsatisfactory. It was therefore decided, in 1961, to prepare an entirely new register—the one which was, in fact, used for the 1962 elections. I will try to explain this as best I can, but it is really very complicated.
My hon. Friend has told the House that the intention was to hold the elections on the 1959 register. With respect, I do not agree. In law, this may be the legal interpretation of the apparent legal intention, but the actual intention in the minds of the people who did it was to hold the elections on the new 1961 register, which had already been prepared by that time, and the trouble arose because of a drafting error in the 1961 Ordinance.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying, in effect, that the law as it was in 1961 provided for amendments to the existing 1959 register, but did not provide for a new register. In fact, the registering officers had legislative authority to compile a new register every tenth year, but for the intervening nine years they only had authority to bring the existing register up to date. So the 1961 register was not legally authorised.
If the Gambia Amendment Ordinance, 1961, had specifically validated the new 1961 register as such—which it could have done and should have done—all would have been well and we would not have been in this difficulty. But it did not do that. All it did was to provide for registering officers to certify the accuracy of their lists and upon such certification, such registers
..shall be deemed to have been lawfully compiled and shall not be open to challenge.
What the Ordinance did not do was to legalise the 1961 voters lists as legal


registers. That was the sole respect in which the error in the Ordinance occurred.

Mr. N. Pannell: Since the 1961 registers were drawn up several months before the amending Ordinance, and if it was the purpose of the Ordinance to regularise these registers, surely a simple clause would have had that effect.

Mr. Fisher: Of course it could. That is what I have been saying. There was absolutely no reason why this register, which had already been drawn up, should not have been specifically validated as such by the Ordinance, but this was the error. It was a drafting error. They failed to put in this most important provision.
My right hon. Friend has been into this personally and with very great care. He is satisfied—and his view is endorsed by the Governor—that there is no doubt at all that the intention of both parties in the Gambia House of Representatives at the time was to hold the 1962 elections on this new 1961 register, which was, of course, what happened. But validation of the 1961 register was, in fact, frustrated by this faulty form of words used in the Ordinance. In short, the Ordinance was very badly drafted and the confusion arises from this legal and technical flaw which was missed by the High Court of Gambia, but spotted by the Court of Appeal.

Mr. N. Pannell: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is not just a slight technical flaw. It is a grave omission. It is leaving out the essential element required to validate the 1961 register.

Mr. Fisher: I will not quarrel with my hon. Friend about the words we use to describe this. He is on one side of the case and I am on the other. I did not say that it was a slight flaw. I said that it was a legal and technical flaw. He says that it was a major omission. We shall not fall out about this. I do not mind what words are used. This is what happened.
My submission to the House is that regrettable as this drafting error may be, it made no difference in fact to the 1961 register or to the result of the 1962 election which was fought upon that register.
My hon. Friend said that the important issue of Gambia's future, in union with or

federated to Senegal should not be decided by a Government which had been improperly elected. If that were the position, I would, of course, fully agree with him, because that is an immensely important issue for the Gambia and one on which there is, I think, some element of controversy between the Gambia Government and the opposition party there. If I thought that there was any substance whatever in the allegation, expressed or implied, that the present Government of the Gambia did not, owing to the1961 register, reflect the democratic wishes of the Gambian people, I assure the House that I would be the first to press for a new register, new elections and, if it so resulted, a new Government. Indeed, it would be my duty and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to insist upon these things.
But that is not the position. The use of the 1961 as opposed to the 1959 register had no effect on the result of the 1962 elections. I will show why I say that. In the Protectorate, the P.P.P., that is, the Government party, quite apart from one unopposed candidate, polled 54,600 votes, while the United Party, the opposition party, and the independents polled together 27,200 votes, only half as many. It was a sweeping victory. In not a single constituency were the votes so close that the errors, if there were errors, in the 1961 register could possibly or conceivably have made any difference to the result. Indeed, except in one constituency large majorities prevailed, I think, throughout the Protectorate. Nor has there been any change in the popular will since the election. In fact, the Gambia's government's party majority has actually increased, because several opposition members have crossed the Floor since the general election.
If new registers were compiled and new elections were held, I am sure that there would not be a result different from the position at present, so what is the point of doing so? Of course we considered doing it, but it would have been very difficult since the validity of the present membership of the legislature would be in question and the law to establish a new register could not have been passed by the present Gambia House. We should have had to do it here by an Order in Council. We could have done it perfectly well and we could


have ordered the compilation of a new register and the holding of new elections upon it. But as there is nothing to suggest that there is anything wrong with the 1961 register, that would have been a very time-taking, inconvenient and expensive procedure, and it would have produced a result which would not have been different from the Gambia which now exists.
My hon. Friend made one criticism. He referred to the fact that some registration clerks stood as candidates at the subsequent elections. Registration clerks did stand as candidates, but there was nothing improper in this. They were not candidates when they were appointed registration clerks, nor were they registration clerks when they became candidates. I am informed, I think reliably, that some registration clerks became U.P. candidates and others P.P.P. candidates, so that this cancels itself out.
I should remind the House that the 1961 Ordinance provided for appeals against any mistakes in the register of electors. Therefore, if there had been any criticisms of the register, they should have been made and presumably would have been made at the time under the proper appeal machinery. I understand that what happened was this. About three months after the 1962 elections had been held, one of the defeated candidates discovered, rather brightly, the legal and technical flaw in the 1961 Ordinance to which I have referred. He used it to go to court and eventually to get a legal verdict from the Appeal Court of invalidation of the register on a technicality. That is really all it is.
That is the position. There is no great issue of principle here and there is certainly no infringement whatever of democracy. There is a drafting error in a Gambia Ordinance, which we have sought to put right with the minimum inconvenience and the minimum delay to the people concerned. I hope that the House will accept this really perfectly innocent explanation of this drafting error, which has in some people's minds, quite genuinely—I am not complaining—been blown up into a great constitutional issue. It is not that at all.
There is one other point to which I should briefly refer, because it has been

mentioned not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale but also my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). They have both pointed out that Mr. N'Jei was not responsible, when in office at the time, for the 1961 Ordinance or for the 1961 register. That is perfectly true. No local Minister was constitutionally responsible at that time. The Commissioner for Local Government was responsible. But it is equally true to say that the decision to compile a new register was taken at an Executive Council meeting at which Mr. N'Jei was present. He therefore knew of the decision and agreed to it, even though he may not fully have understood it. I cannot say that I blame him; it is an extremely complicated matter. But he was cognisant of it in theory, because he was present, and so, although I do not in any way attach responsibility to him, because he was not responsible at the time, he did not object, nor did either of the political parties object, to what was being done. It was the intention that this should be done.
Even though it is a complicated matter there is no substance in all this. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that whatever method had been adopted to put it right—whatever method we could have used, other than the one we chose—the practical result, in the membership of the House of Representatives, would have been no different at all from what it is today. That is the point from a democratic point of view, and the point of importance so far as the Gambia is concerned.
Nevertheless, having said that, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter in the House, because it has enabled me to try—in so far as it is comprehensible to anyone who has not studied it—to correct the impression that might have gained currency in the Gambia that some injustice had somehow been perpetrated, or some democratic principle somehow flouted. That is not the case, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will accept my explanation of the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock